document resume - eric · 2014-03-11 · jane schultz, steve campbell, brian sevy, leann hyer, mark...
TRANSCRIPT
ED 290 284
AUTHORT:TLE
INSTITUTION
SPONS AGENCY
PUB DATEGRANTNOTE
PUB TYPE
DOCUMENT RESUME
EC 201 746
Striefel, Sebastian; And OthersGrouping Handicapped and Non-Handicapped Children inMainstream Settings. The Functional Mainstreaming forSuccess (FMS) Project. Final Report--Part 1.Utah State Univ., Logan. Developmental Center forHandicapped Persons.Special Education Programs (ED/OSERS), Washington,DC. Handicapped Children's Early Education Program.ve24 Aug 87G008401757231p.; For Part 2 and 3 of the Final Report, see EC201 747-748. For selected papers, see EC 201 749,, andEC 201 751-759.Reports - Evaluative/Feasibility (142)
EDRS PRICE MF01/PC10 Plus Postage.DESCRIPTORS Academic Achievement; Attitude Change; Demonstration
Programs; *Disabilities; Interpersonal Competence;*Mainstreaming; Parent Attitudes; Peer Acceptance;Preschool Education; *Program Effectiveness; TeacherAttitudes
IDENTIFIERS Early Intervention; *Functional Mainstreaming forSuccess Project; *Reverse Mainstreaming
ABSTRACTThe final report describes the 3-year project,
"Functional Mainstreaming for Success," designed to develop a modelfor instructional mainstreaming of 162 handicapped children (3-6years old) in community settings. The major feature of the projectwas development of a full reverse mainstreamed preschool program,which included children with and without handicaps in the same classat a 50:50 ratio. The project developed and implemented materials toteach necessary skills to administrators; regular, preschool, andspecial education teachers; and related personnel. Activitiesincluded assessment, inservice training, provision of materials,technical assistance, and direct support. Attitudes of parents,normal children, and school personnel toward handicapped childrenbecame more positive as a result of project activities. The progressof the handicapped children in the total reverse mainstreamclassrooms generally surpassed that of similar children in partialmainstream classrooms, and was very similar to that of normalchildren in the mainstream classroom. Social interaction of childrenin the total mainstreamed classrooms was similar to that of peers whowere not handicapped. (Author/DB)
************************************************************************ Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made ** from the original document. **********************************t*************************************
The Project Directors would like to express their appreciation to all
of the people who helped develop, implement or facilitate the completion of
this project.- Specifically, we want to thank Trenly Yanito, Stacey Mott,
Afsaneh Ahooraiyan, Paul Adams, Joel Allred, Brady Phelps, Connie Nelke,
Jane Schultz, Steve Campbell, Brian Sevy, LeAnn Hyer, Mark Thornburg, Robin
Korones, Patti Bodine, Christy Woffinden, Sonja Nyman, Nancy Yonk, Sue
Olsen, Bonnie Julander, Brooki Sexton, Pam Miller, Anne Elsweiler, Bob
Morgan, Nancy Miller, Judy Myles, Carrie Munn, Susie Sivill, Geanie Lombard,
Ellen Frede, and anyone else who helped but whose name we forgot to list.
This publication was supported by Grant Number G00841757 from the
Handicapped Children's Early Education Program of the U.S. Department of
Education. However, the opinions expressed herein do not necessarily
reflect the position of the U.S. Department of Education and no official
endorsement by them should be inferred.
3
Abstract
Functional Mainstreaming for Success Project(FMS)
A Handicapped Children's Early Education Project
Sebastian Striefel, Ph.D. John Killoran, M.Ed. Maria QuinteroDirector CoDirector Coordinator
The project Functional Mainstreaming for Success was designed to develop anddemonstrate a model for instructional and social mainstreaming of childrenwith and without handicaps in community settings, such as preschools.During its three years of development, the project involved children, ages 3to 6 years, whose handicapping conditions ranged from moderately to severelymultiply handicapped, including mental retardation, emotional, physical,motor, and sensory impairments, and children without handicaps within thesame age range.
The goals, components and activities of the FMS project focused on:
1. The identification and development of assessment procedures fordetermining the type of integration activities appropriate for eachchild, selecting the most appropriate integration alternative fromhose available, and using this information in training and/or matching
Students to teacher 'xpectations.
2. The development of activities for functional, effective grouping ofchildren with and without handicaps.
The development of procedures for preparing children without handicaps,their parents, and educational staff for mainstreaming of children withhandicaps.
4. The development of procedures for preparing children with handicaps andtheir families for mainstreaming.
5. The development of procedures for determining the providing the supportservices needed by regular teachers when children with handicaps areintegrated into the regular classroom.
The FMS project developed and implemented materials to teach administrators;regular, preschool, and special education teachers; and related support
personnel the skills needed to provide services to children with handicapsin integrated settings. This was accomplished through a process ofassessment, inservice training, availability of materials, technicalassistance, and direct support. The major feature of this project was thedevelopment of a full reverse mainstreamed preschool program, which includedchildren with and without handicaps in the same class at a 50:50 ratio.Through project activities, the attitudes of parents, normal children, andschool personnel as reported on written feedback forms, became more positivetoward children with handicaps after involvement in the project. The rateof progress of children with handicaps in total reverse mainstream
(
4
2
classrooms generally surpassed the progress of similar children in partialmainstream classrooms and was very similar to that of normal children in themainstream classrooms. The level of social interaction of children to totalmainstreamed classrooms was similar to that of peers who were nothandicapped.
For further information contact Sebastian Striefel or John Killoran at:Developmental Center for Handicapped Persons
Utah State UniversityLogan, UT 84322-6800
(801) 750 -1985 or 750-2013
3
Why FMS was Developed
The integration of preschool children who have handicaps into community
preschools has been a major focus of early intervention programs in recent
years (Guralpick, 1983; Striefel & Killoran, 1984; Weisenstein & Pelz,
1986). Integration attempts have ranged from placing children in physical
proximity with nonhandicapped peers, to fulltime placement of children
with severe handicaps into normal day care (Rule, Killoran, Stowitschek,
Innocenti, Striefel, & Boswell, 1985; Guralnick, 1983). The importance of
providing early intervention in least restrictive settings for children who
have handicaps was emphasized by the passage of P.L. 99-457, the extension
of P.L. 94-142 to the age of three (Congressional Records, 1986) which
mandates least restrictive services; and by the commitment demonstrated by
the U.S. Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services in
prioritizing early childhood intervention and least restrictive environments
as their high priority goals (Bellamy, 1986).
Integration can appear difficult to achieve because children who have
handicaps often require greater numbers of trials in order to learn a skill,
smaller groups or individual attention during training, and procedures for
specifically generalizing learned skills across different settings and
trainers (Stokes & Baer, 1977; Brown, Nisbet, Ford, Sweet, Shiraga, York, &
Loomis, 1983). Traditional teaching techniques used in normal preschool
programs often lack the intensity and systematic components needed to teach
a child who has handicaps (Dewulf, Stowitschek & Biery, 1986). These
components: assessment, individualization, and progress monitoring, have
been demonstrated to increase the effectiveness of instruction (Peters &
6
4
Hoyt, 1986;). Teachers, themselves, report their perceived lack of
preparation and training for teaching children with handicaps (Stainback &
Stainback, 1983). An innovative, alternate model of service delivery was
needed which' accommodates training to meet an individual child's needs,
while still addressing the needs of the group.
Service Delivery Philosophy
1he Functional Mainstreaming for Success (FMS) Project (Striefel &
Killoran, 1984) has developed a model for preschool mainstreaming which is
committed to the philosophy of providing services in totally integrated
settings to preschoolers with handicaps. This philosophy is based on the
premise that adults with handicaps who are expected to function within, and
contribute to, normal community settings must learn as children to function
within normal environments (Donder & York, 1986). However, exposure to a
nomal environment alone will not guarantee successful interaction in that
environment (Brown, Bronston, HamreNietupski, Johnson, Wilcox, & Grunewald,
1979; Gresham, 1981). Integration must go beyond physical integration, to
the incorporation of instructional and social integration as major goals of
a program (Nash & Boileau, 1980; Strief'%1 & Killoran, 1984a; Striefel &
Killoran, 1984b; Zigmond & Sansone, 1981).
Overview of the FMS Demonstration Project
With the passage of PL 99-457, the potential utility of the FMS Model
is enhanced greatly. The law requires services to preschool children who
have handicaps in the least restrictive setting. Since services are not
mandated for children who are not handicapped, it is likely that most
5
programs in most states will initially be housed in self-contained
classrooms or centers. The model of integrating children via reverse
mainstreaming (total or partial, depending on child needs) should have
tremendous appeal, since the model was developed for precisely these types
of settings.
As an HCEEP model demonstration project (1984-87), the FMS Project
focused on developing a model for providing preschool-age children who have
handicaps, with normal experiences and intervention services in environments
with normal preschoolers. In order to accomplish the social and
instructional integration of the two groups of preschoolers (those with and
those without handicaps), the FMS Project outlined the following five goals
and fifteen objectives:
Goal 1 - To develop effective, replicable procedures for determining the
type of integration activities appropriate for each child served and for
Is...._sstapprporiateselectinthen integration alternative from those available.
Objective 1.1. To develop_or locate appropriate methods for assessing
each handicapped child's: (a) social,_(b) preacademic and academic,
(c) language and communication, (d) self-help, and (e) cognitive skill
levelsforthetiningthearoriatelevelofE__
integration.
Goal 2 - To develop effective, replicable alternative activities for
meaningful integration of handicapped children with nonhandicapped peers,
6
Cbjective 2.1 To develop and implement peer tutoring systems for
assuring that appropriate peer models are available and that
interaction between normal and handicapped children occurs.
Objective 2.2 To develop and implement a teaching group system so that
normal and handicapped children are taught academic and related skills
within the same small group
Objective 2.3 To develop and implement a buddy system to as*ure that
each handicapped child has a "big brother" or "big sister" to help,
foster lea_ rning
9222tLve.....224Todeveloandimlentasstemtoassurethat
normally occurring teaching opportunities throughout the day maximize
handicapped and normal student interaction
Goal 3 To develop effective, replicable procedures for generally preparing
staff, normal children, and their parents for mainstreaming of handicapped
children into a specific school or classroom.
Objective .1 To determine the im act of u et shows and simulation
activities as methods for preparing teachers, parents, and normal
children for mainstreaming
Objective 3.2 To determine what other methods are available to re are
teachers, parents, and children for mainstreaming and to develop and
implement such
9
7
Goal 4.0 - To develop effective, replicable procedures for preparing
handicapped children and their families for integration of the child with
ronhandicapped peers.
Objective 4.1 To develop and implement for parents of handica ped
children a system of two-way communication, education, and decision
making about mainstreaming
Objective 4.2 To develop and implement a system that prepares children
to achieve entry skills for identified mainstream settings.
Objective 4.3 To develop and implement procedures to prepare children
ps cholo icall and emotionall for leavin one settin: and enterin
mainstream setting_
Goal 5.0 To develo r e licable effective rocedures for determining and
payiding the support services needed b a re ular teacher when handica
children are inte ra'ted into re:ular classroom activities.
9212ctive 5.1 To determine the teacher's level of familiarity with
special education techniques and handicapping conditions and,_to provide
inservice training as needed
Objective 5.2 To determine the level and type of technical assistance
and su I IIort services needed b the re:ular teacher and to rovide them
Objective 5.3 To determine the materials and adaptive equipment needed
in the mainstream setting_ and to help procure these items.
1.0
8
The Model
The activities of the five goals of the project were combined in various
ways to accomplish functional integration. The major focus of the project
was on total reverse mainstreaming.(See Figure 1 for a diagramatic
overview), in which normal children were brought into selfcontained
classrooms on a fulltime basis. Some children who have handicaps were not
yet ready for fulltime mainstreaming; thus, they were involved in partial
reverse mainstreaming, in which normal children were brought into self
contained classrooms for specific activities. Children could exit total or
partial reverse mainstreaming by being systematically integrated
(transitioned) into less restrictive settings elsewhere, e.g., regular
kindergarten. Children could also be transitioned to other programs because
they became 5 years of age and therefore, were no longer eligible for
preschool services in Utah. Systematic transition procedures were developed
by the project. The particular type(s) of mainstreaming in which a
preschool child with handicaps was involved was determined on the basis of a
placement decision by an interdisciplinary team that also developed an
individualized education plan for'each child with handicaps. Some children
were ready for total reverse mainstreaming, and some for partial reverse
mainstreaming. After specific skills were acquired, some were mainstreamed
(transitioned) elsewhere.
FMS Model Description
The intent of the model developed by the Functional Mainstreaming for
Success Project is to desegregate existing selfcontained special education
preschool programs. That is, those programs that have traditionally served
Entry into Functional Mainstreaming Program
Assessment of deficits and strengths
Team Placement Decision
Partial Reverse MainstreamingClassroom
ellMNIlina400.
Total Reverse MainstreamingClassroom Placement
Re-Evaluation
9
47
TransitionElsewhere
i
ir
(Stop)
Fig. 1 Flowchart of children's placements into total or partial reverse mainstreamingand/or placement elsewhere
12
10
children with handicaps in totally segregated settings. The model has been
used by state educational agencies, state social service agencies, and
private preschool programs providing services to children with handicaps.
The model is. comprised of ten tasks, beginning with th4, demonstration of
administrative commitment to the philosophy of integrated service delivery
systems and ending with the transition of students from the preschool
program to the public schools. Three major components addressed in the
model are 1) total reverse mainstreaming, 2) partial reverse mainstreaming,
3) and transition. The ten tasks which represent the model follow. The
products and instruments developed by the FMS project for accomplishing each
task are included and discussed in the accompanying Project Manual.
FMS MODEL FOR MAINSTREAMING
General Planning Tasks 1-5
Task 1. Administrative Commitment
- Demonstration of Program Administrator's Commitment
- Administrative Decision-Making
Materials in Project Manual: Administrator Checklist;Administrative Planning Forms; Terms Related to Mainstreaming
Task 2. Staff Preparation and Awareness Activities
- Orientation
- Needs Assessment
- Training
- Technical Assistance and Follow-Up
Materials in Project Manual: Brochure, Questions Teachers Raiseon Mainstreaming; General Teachers Needs Assessments; TeacherExpectations and Assistance for Mainstreaming -Preschool- .
Kindergarten and Manual; Directory of Local Training Resources
13
11
Task 3. Modification of Service Delivery System
- Curricula Change
- Theme Orientation Vs. Traditional Self-Contained Models
- Least Restrictive Instruction
Non-Obstrusive Data Collection
- Least Restrictive Behavioral Programming
- Consultant Model
Materials in Project Manual: FMS Service Delivery Description,Teacher Guidelines for Prompting and Praising.
Task 4. Parent Preparation
- Parents of Students With Handicaps
- Parents of Students Without Handicaps
- All Parents
Materials in Project Manual: Parent Mainstreaming Questionnaire;Parent Brochures (2)
Task 5. Peer Preparation
- General
- Child Specific
Materials in Project Manual: Peer Preparation of Preschoolers in. Mainstream Settings
CHILD SPECIFIC TASKS 6-10
Task 6. Child Identification and Recruitment
- Identification of Students With Handicaps
- Recruitment of Students Without Handicaps
Materials in Project Manual: Mainstreaming Expectations SkillsAssessment -Preschool and Kindergarten.
12
Task 7. IEP Decision-Making Process
- Finalize Placement in Partial or Total Mainstreaming Class Based onAssessment of child strengths and deficits and eligibility criteria.
- Develop IEP
Materials in Project Manual: Eligibility Criteria Checklist;Opinionnaire for Mainstreaming; IEP Flowchart
Task 8. Implementation
- Child Study Teams (CST) Develop Weekly Lesson Plan
- Child Study Teams (CST) Schedule Intervention
- Child Study Teams (CST) Develop Functional Grouping for instructionaland social interventions.
- Begin Interventions
Materials in Project Manual: FMS Weekly Lesson Planning Forms;Functional Grouping Guideline; Mainstreaming Teacher Guide forPeer Tutoring; Guidelines for a Successful Buddy System
Task 9. Evaluation
- Child Progress
- Transition
- Follow-Up
Materials in Project Manual: Mainstreaming Expectations Skills
Assessment -Preschool and Kindergarten; Classroom EnvironmentObservation, Child Profile
Task 10. Consumer Satisfaction
- Parents
- Staff
- Non-Handicapped Peers
Materials in Project Manual: Parent Satisfaction Questionnaire;
Staff Satisfaction Questionnaire, Child Stress Checklist
15
13
General Planning Tasks
Task 1 Administrative Commitment: During Task 1 program administrators
must demonstrate their commitment to both the philosophy of mainstreaming as
well as committing the resources needed for successful implementation'of the
FMS model. Resources include, but are not limited to, financial resources,
space resources, material resources, and staff resources. During task one
there is also a set of administration decision making questions which must
be answered. These questions address the recruitment of non-handicapped
students, curriculum modification and consultant service delivery models
versus direct service delivery models. Decisions must also be made in terms
of the type and intensity of preparation activities which will be conducted
for staff, parents, student's with handicaps, and their non-handicapped
peers. The major purpose of task one is to determine the appropriateness
and feasibility of mainstreaming for the agency and to prepare for
mainstreaming if the agency decides to adopt the FMS model. Materials
available in the Project Manual were developed for these activities and
include A Self-Evaluation Checklist for Administrators and Administrative
Planning Forms.
Task 2 Staff Preparation and Awareness Activity: The purpose of Task 2 is
to orient and train agency staff in implementing the FMS mainstreaming
model. Orientation includes introduction to the new administrative policies
which have been developed as well as becoming aware of the level of
administrative commitment to the integration process (Administrative
Planning Forms). During the orientation, written materials defining what
mainstreaming is, explaining integration, answering questions teachers most
6
14
commonly ask and discussing the time lines for implementation of the model
are presented (Teacher Brochure). Also, needs assessments are conducted
with staff for identifying any existing staff training needs necessary for
training students with and without handicaps within integrated programs and
a plan for providing the training which is identified is developed. Task 2
utilizes the General Teacher Needs Assessment: 23 Critical Skills of
Mainstreaming, the TeamPK, or Teacher Expectations and Assistance For
Mainstreaming Preschoolers and Kindergarteners as well as the Directory of
Training Resources which have been developed by the FMS project. Also,
included in Task Two are the identification of technical assistance needs
and their availability, identifying whether the technical assistance can be
provided internally or externally, and arrangements for funding the
technical assistance needs which are required.
Task 3 Modification of Service Delivery Systems: The FMS model was
designed to incorporate the strengths of traditional group and
individualized teaching methods. Group curricula is defined as a systematic
arrangement of time, procedures, materials, and tasks (Findlay, Miller,
Pegram, Richie, Sanford, & Schmran, 1976). In group curricula the
arrangement is based on addressing the common characteristics and needs of
more than one student at a time ( Findlay, et al, 1976), and usually
incorporates skills that are developmentally sequenced and are taught
through exploration of the environment; however, children with handicaps are
particularly slow at learning incidently and generalizing any such learning
to other situations (Stokes and Baer, 1977). In a traditional preschool
17
15
program, individualized instructional objectives are not established
(Oconnel, 1986). Group curricula traditionally follows a unit or theme
concept in which the unit: or themes are planned for a weekly, biweekly or
monthly time period. Units are usually nonoperationalized concepts, such
as animals, holidays, or transportation. Child progress monitoring, when it
occurs, is usually confined to prepost testing and standardized norm
reference assessments and anecdotol recordings. Advantages of group
instructions include the efficiency of teaching many children at once, and
opportunities for children to learn in naturally occurring environments.
Unfortunately, specific child deficits are rarely identified and remediated,
and when identification does occur, it is usually in the area of behavioral
deficits. If developmental delays are significant and skill deficits are
suspected or identified, the child is usually referred elsewhere for
remeadiation, rather than receiving intervention in the regular preschool
placement.
In contrast, traditional individualized curricula, a common
characteristic of special education programs, focuses on the needs of an
individual child, rather than on meeting needs of a group. Interventions
are developed for a particular child and are implemented in small groups or
one to one instruction, usually in selfcontained segregated classrooms. An
advantage of a traditional individualized curricula is that it can
accommodate behavioral teaching techniques which have been demonstrated to
be effective for teaching children who have handicaps (Greer, Anderson, &
Odell, 1984). These techniques includes but are not limited to: a)
assessment, b) IEP development, c) one to one instruction, d) frequent'
1I 8
16
progress monitoring of child skill acquisition, and e) revision of teaching
programs based on child progress. Unfortunately, a traditional
individualized curriculum may actually be selfdefeating to the process of
integration.. The emphasis on one to one and small group instruction in the
special setting of a selfcontained class can hinder the student's
generalization and transfer of skills to settings other than those in which
they are trained (Brown., et al, 1983). Furthermore, the specificity of
traditional instruction and discrete trial programming can train a child to
respond appropriately to a limited number of stimuli with a limited number
of responses that often do not occur in the natural environment.
Traditional individualized instruction allows the student to be successful
in the segregated special education setting. However, when a school setting
is restricted to the segregated selfcontained classroom such instruction
increases the child dependency on special education, limits interaction in
the community, and prohibits social interaction between children with and
without handicaps (Widerstrom, 1986).
In order to optimize the acquisition of skills with students in
integrated settings the strengths of groups and individualized curricula
have been merged by the FMS project. At first appearance it may seem that
group and individualized curricula are mutually exclusive within a single
setting. However with careful planning and individualization within group
activities this merger has been readily accomplished.
This merger has been accomplished by adopting the concepts of a) least
restrictive instructional programming, b) nonobtrusive dat collection, and
19
17
c) the use of least restrictive behavioral programming within the format of
the FMS Lesson Planning Forms. This merger has also entailed the adoption
of a consultant model for the delivery of the majority of related services
to students of special needs.
Least restrictive instruction refers to the concept of starting all children
in individualized large group activities based on IEP goals and objectives.
Only when the child's data demonstrate that the child is not making adequate
progress within the large group is the child moved to a more intensive level
of small group instruction. If the child's progress monitoring still
indicates that skill acquisition is not occurring the student is then moved
into individualized microsession training. Microsessions refer to short 10
to 15 training minute sessions designed to utilize traditional discrete
trial, behavioral special education. Microsessions entail the presentation
of specific stimuli, specific learner responses, and consequation procedures
consisting of either correction procedures and/or reinforcement.
Individualized incidental teaching is also utilized in the FMS model
(Teacher Guidelines for Prompting and Praising). Incidental teaching for
our purposes refers to the identification of the time of day in which a
skill naturally occurs, and using graduated prompting and praising or other
teaching techniques for training that skill. For example, children are
taught to put on and zip coats before going out for free play or before
going home for the day rather than being trained through direct discrete
trail training in a corner of the classroom at times that are not related to
going anywhere else.
20
18
Nonobstrusive data collection refers to the collection of daily progress
data in natural rather than artificial ways. For children in large group
instruction this may be as simple as anecdotal recording or daily probes.
As a child moves into more intensive, or more restrictive instruction,. the
intensity of data collection procedures used increases. Thus data
collection for children in large and small groups may be based on anecdotal
or probe recordings. In contrast, children in microsessions are in discrete
trial formats using both mass and distributed trials. The FMS Data
Collection Forms were developed for nonobtrusive data collectioil-
Leati...-23121q1.212222,122-alrnmin refers to the implementation of
positive behavioral management techniques prior to the utilization of more
intensive techniques. A policy developed by the DCHP has been used for this
purpose. The policy provides a hierarchy of behavioral procedures to be
used with all children beginning with modification of antecedents,
identification and use of functional reinforcers, and progressing through a
hierarchy of less to more intensive procedures with the application of
aversive stimuli as the most restrictive behavioral programming being
conducted. Restrictive behavior programming also includes the review of
aversive programming by a Human Rights Committee which serves as an advocate
for the child.
The FMS service delivery model also relies heavily upon the use of
consultants in terms of service delivery. In our consultant delivery model
(developed at the Developmental Center for Handicapped Persons), consultants
such as speech and language therapists, behavior therapists, and
21
19
occupational and /or physical therapists are responsible for a) assessment
of a child's, strengths and deficits, b) development of components of the
IEP, c) program development, d) training staff in implementation of the
programs developed, and e) monitoring of both the implementation of the
program by the trained staff, as well as, monitoring of child progress data
for use in programming. Related services are also provided through direct
service delivery models when related service personnel feel it is a high
priority skill for a child, or no other children in the classroom need
instruction in the same or similar skills and grouping is not effective.
Task 4 Parent Preparation: The purpose of Task 4, parent preparation, is
to inform parents, both those of children with handicaps and those of
children without handicaps, of the purposes and philosophy of integration,
changes in the present preschool program, to answer questions, and to give
parents the opportunity to become more involved in their children's program.
This is accomplished by contacting parents by phone or in person to plan
meetings, meeting with parents to answer all questions, and to revise IEP's
for children previously enrolled in selfcontained programs if needed, and
for conducting joint or integrated group parent meetings in terms of
completing paperwork, answering further questions, providing parents with
support groups and contacts, setting up car pools, and soliciting classroom
volunteers. FMS has developed brochures answering questions which parents
commonly ask.
Task 5 Peer Pyeparation: Peer preparation involves general awareness
activities as well as child specific preparation. These activities may be
22
20
conducted prior to integration when nonhandicapped children are recruited
from a single source but most often occur within the integrated classroom
itself. General awareness activities are usually conducted as simple puppet
shows and class discuzzions (See Peer Preparation of Preschoolers in
Mainstream Settings). In contrast child specific preparation involves
teaching the communication systems of peers who have handicaps, discussing
inappropriate, selfinjurious or aggressive behaviors with the non
handicapped peers, and teaching the nonhandicapped peers methods for
dealing with inappropriate behavior and for increasing peer interaction.
Child Specific Tasks 6 10
Task 6 Child Identification and Recruitment: Child identification and
recruitment is a two part process which involves both the identification of
students with handicaps for placement in integrated classrooms and the
recruitment of students without handicaps. Identification of students with
handicaps follows the traditional agency referral process, includes the
identification of child deficits and strengths through assessment both
formal and informal (Mainstreaming Expectations and Skills Assessment for
PreschoolKindergarten), and concluaes with the determination of eligibility
for acceptance into the program or for referral to other agencies programs
as appropriate. Child identification of students with handicaps is
conducted with all students enrolled in the program, as well as with new
children referred for services.
The recruitment of students without handicaps is based on the program
policy which has been determined in Task 1, administrative decision making.
23
21
It includes methods of recruitment such as newspaper ads, radio
announcements, word of mouth and flyers. It incorporates screening non
handicapped students for unidentified deficits (i.e., Brigance), selecting
students who have been screened for immediate enrollment, and the
establishment of waiting lists. As nonhandicapped children are identified
as being eligible for the program, parent preparation activities are alsc
initiated. Task 6 activities also include the determination of tuition
costs for children who are not handicapped, whether tuition costs will be
based on sliding scales or set fees, the investigation of any available
subsidies for children who are not handicapped, the establishment of fee
payment schedules, and the development of action plans which will be
necessary in cases of nonpayment of fees. Task 6 activities are
accomplished via the Administrative Planning Forms.
Task 7 IEP Decision Making Process: During the IEP decision making process
it is decided whether or not children will be placed in a totally integrated
(total reverse mainstreaming) classroom or in a classrooms where partial
mainstreaming activities are conducted. The IEP decision making process
incorporates the traditional eligibility criteria of the program, is based
on the identification of child strengths, deficits, and training needs
through ongoing assessment, and evaluates the child's ability to follow one
step commands and whether aggressive and selfinjurious behaviors are under
verbal stimulus control for total mainstreaming placement. Based on the
above criteria, decisions are made on whether a child is appropriate for
placement in the totally mainstreamed class or if the children will
participate in a partial mainstreaming class.
22
Once the placement of a child has been determined the formal IEP is
developed by the Child Study Team. The Child Study Team includes parents,
the program administrator, teacher, and all related services personnel which
will be providing or Ilanning interventions for the child. Upon the
development of goals and objectives, the training intensity for each goal
and objective (i.e., large group, small group, microsessions) is determined.
Peer interaction systems (whether informal or a systematic buddy system),
are also determined during this step of the IEP process. For children whose
placements have been determined to be most appropriate as partial mainstream
placements, options for partial mainstreaming are determined for each goal
which is established by using the FMS Options for Mainstreaming Guidelines.
These options include mainstreaming into the integrated classroom for social
and instructional activities, and the use of peer interaction systems such
as buddy and/or tutoring programs for both instructional and social skill
acquisition. The IEP decision process concludes with the identification of
the responsibilities of each member as a child's study team, assurances that
the IEP is in compliance with all IEP guidelines, and establishment of dates
for the initiation of services. The IEP DecisionMaking Flow Chart is used
in Task 7.
Task 8 Implementation: The purpose of Task 8 is to initiate the programs
and interventions which have been identified as appropriate for meeting each
child's needs. The first step in the implementation task is the development
of weekly lesson plans (FMS Lesson Planning Forms) by the child's study team
based on theme concepts. These weekly lesson plans are then individualized
by the child's study team in one of two ways. For children who are non
25
23
handicapped it is individualized according to the curriculum based
assessment which has been conducted on that child. For children with
handicaps the weekly lesson plans are individualized (Individualization
Forms) to provide training and intervention in the IEP goals and objectives
which been established for that particular child.
The second phase in implementation is the scheduling of interventions
by the child's study team. This includes who will be the implementor, and
whether the intervention will be provided through a consultant model or
through a direct service model. The frequency or how often interventions
will be provided, as well as the intensity at which that intervention will
be conducted are also planned on the Lesson Planning Forms.
The third phase under implementation is the development of functional
grouping for both instructional and social interaction (See Service Delivery
Description System). Functional grouping for instructional purposes
includes the use of large and small group instruction and incidental
teaching. Functional grouping for.social skill acquisition and increasing
social peer interactions includes both informal groups as well as the use of
systematic buddy systems. The use of graduated guidance i.e. prompting and
praising techniques for increasing social interaction is also planned within
the development of functional groups.
The final phase under implementation is the actual.intiation of
interventions. This refers to the implementation of instructional and
social interventions, the recording of daily and weekly progress monitoring
PG
211
data, and decisions to reprogram based on mastery of identified goals and
objectives or lack of progress in existing programs.
Task 9 Evaluation and Transition: The purpose of task 9, evaluation and
transition, is to evaluate the impact of the program and to make adjustment
and or transition children as needed. Reprogramming interventions for
student's with handicaps is based on assessment, IEP progress, and data
which has been collected for identified skill deficits. For children
without handicaps child progress is monitored through curricula based
assessment. Evaluation data for children with and without handicaps is
utilized for two purposes. The first of those being for transitioning
student's to community programs and second to reprogram skills based on lack
of skill acquisition.
Transition procedures are initiated when student's with handicaps
demonstrate the exit criteria which has been established on the IEP or when
the student has reached public school age. The transition process includes
identification of the receiving agency (whether that is the existing agency
the child is enrolled in or movement into a community program), obtaining
and providing transition information, through the MESA PK, CEO, and Child
Profile, to the receiving agency. It concludes with meetings with the
receiving agency to determine placement, communicate transition information,
and to provide IEP recommendations.
Transitioning when student's with handicaps have reached public school
age is identical to that of when they have demonstrated exit criteria with
27
25
the exception of the identification of the receiving school. In the latter
case, the transition meeting concentrates on the determination on whether a
child.shouldbe placed in a neighborhood school in their home community, or
whether special class placement in an alternative neighborhood school or
within a segregated training center facility is more appropriate.
Transition information and transition meetings are identical to the
procedures previously described. Transition activities for student's
without handicaps include the identification of the neighborhood
kindergarten program which they will attend, the provision of transition
information based upon the previously mentioned transition instruments, and
communicating this information to the receiving school.
Task 10 Consumer Satisfaction: The purpose of task 10 is to collect
satisfaction data from parents, both those of children with and those of
children without handicaps, and from staff. Consumer satisfaction surveys
were developed by the FMS Project for this purpose. Data is collected in
terms of satisfaction with individual programs for children, staff
interactions, and overall general quality and feedback on the program
itself. The data is then used to revise and make adjustments in the program
as indicated. Child stress data is also collected on non-handicapped peers
through the Child Stress Checklist.
Description of FMS Total and Partial Reverse Mainstreaming Approaches.
The student in a special education self-contained classroom rarely has
contact with non-handicapped peers. In response to this situation, the FMS
Total and Partial Reverse Mainstreaming approaches were developed. The FMS
28
26
Total Reverse Mainstreaming model classrooms are noncategorical, i.e.,
children with mildtosevere handicaps and children without handicaps attend
the same classes. In the mainstreamed classrooms, 1/2 of the children (8)
have handicaps and 1/2 of the children (8) do not have handicaps. Children
are taught in large and small groups, as pr '2viously described, and service
goals for children with hand'-laps are addressed within these groups, unless
a child's progress indicates that they need onetoone intervention. One
toone sessions are kept at a minimum, so that the child can still
participate in other activities where language, social, and group attending
skills can be developed and practiced. Within groups, FMS staff assist in
training teaching personnel to use effective prompting and praising
procedures, strategic grouping of children in the classroom for learning
groups, and peer buddies to facilitate social interactions. Parents are
encouraged to be active in the classrooms, and to express their concerns
about mainstreaming. Parents are provided written material to answer their
questions about the mainstreaming process.
The FMS total reverse mainstreaming classrooms are staffed by a teacher
and two aides. This is an increase of one aide over when the classrooms
were selfcontained. However, children who need onetoone therapy may need
a speech and language pathologist, a behavior specialist, and/or a motor
specialist, on a consultative basis. Individual programs vary according to
each child's needs, and are met through college students, parents, and
volunteers who are solicited to conduct programs under the supervision of
specialists and/or the classroom teacher. Hired aides can be used if
volunteers are not available. In a classroom where the handicapping
29
27
conditions of the children range from mild-to-moderate, few one-to-one
sessions are needed and the need for additional personnel is minimal. In
classrooms where 8 or more children with moderate-to-severe handicapping
conditions are being served, an average of 5-6 adults may be needed in the
classroom when one-to-one sessions are being conducted.
Children who are not yet ready for Total Reverse Mainstreaming are
involved in partial Reverse Mainstreaming (as shown previously in Figure 1),
as appropriate to the needs of the individual child as determined by the
child's IEP team.
Effectiveness Data
Effectiveness of the FMS Model.
During the developmental phases of the FMS Model, various procedures
and materials were field tested on different populations (i.e., parents,
teachers, children with and without handicaps), feedback and direct
observation data were collected, and procedures and materials e revised
and field tested again. The procedures and materials followed the 10 steps
of the Borg and Gall (1979) research and development model (See the FMS
Tracking System). This process continued until the procedures and materials
could readily be used to achieve the desired outcome. Information on the
number of parents, teachers and children impacted during development and
implementation of the FMS Model are presented in Table 1.
30
Table 1
28
Number of Parents, Teachers and Children Involved
in the Development and Implementation of the FMS Model
Parentsof Both Teachers
Children Children ChildrenWith Without W/ & W/0 Support
Handicaps Handicaps Handicaps Staff
Total Reverse MS 48 47 99 15
Partial Reverse MS 48 46 10 15 +
3 Aides
Transition 66 100 8 21
Community AwarenessActivities N/A 1508 29 40
-Puppetry-Parent Programs, etc.
Buddy System(FMS Components)
16 79 N/A 25
Teacher Training(Workshop)
N/A N/A N/A 146
Sub-Totals
N/A = Not Applicable
178 1780 146 262
In the later half of fiscal year 1985-86, and again in the fall of 1986
(fiscal year 86 -87), field testing of the Total FMS Model (including Total
and Partial Reverse Mainstreaming and Transitioning) was conducted. The
data collected provides evidence that the FMS Model is effective. A summary
of that evidence is provided in the sections that follow.
31.
29
Effectiveness with Children, 1985-86. The progress on IPP objectives
of 11 children who participated in FMS Total Reverse Mainstreaming in fiscal
year 1985-86 is summarized in Table 2. Children were grouped by
handicapping condition. Microsessions were 10 to 15 minute, one-to-one
sessions conducted by an adult with one child.
Table 2% Objectives Achieved in Each Placementand Corresponding Number of Microsemaionm
HandicappingCondition
1
!
1
1 2- % Objectives AchievedI
I
1
: X Number Micro-1 Sessions Per Week1
I
'Partially 'Main-;Mainstream ;streamed
1 1
'Self- Mein- 1
1% Diff.1ContainedIstreamed 1 Diff.
1
IH (n=4)
II
1 36.5;Range =1(26-44)
I
I
I
1 40.8
1(33-58)1
I
I
1+4.31
1
I
I
I
I
1 35.3I
1
I
1
I
I
1 7.51(2-16)
1
I
I
1 -27.81
I
1
I
1 1 I 1 I I
CD/BD/OH 1 61.4 1 61.4 1 0 1 32 1 4.6 1 -27.4
(n=5) 1(43-81) 1(50-72),
I 1 1(0-11) 1
1 1 1 1 1 1
1 I 1
11 1 1
*BIB (n=1) 1 47 1 33 1-14 1 38 16 1 -32
1 1 1 i 1 :
1 1 1 1
**SMH-A 1 41 1 22 1-19 1 28 111 1 -17(n=1) 1 i 1 1 1
11 1 1
X of Total 1 49.2 i 47.7 1-1.5 1 33.4 1 6.4 1 -27
411111
Children with intellectual handicaps (IH) achieved more objectives in
the mainstreamed classes with about 1/5 as many microsessions as children in
the self-contained classroom, where microsessions were more frequent.
Children with communication, behavior, and orthopedic handicaps (CD, BD, OH)
achieved similar percentages of objectives in both settings; but the need
30
for microsessions was very significantly lower in mainstreamed classes. Two
children with severe intellectual and severe multiple handicaps had a
reduction in'achievement in the mainstreamed classroom; however, their
achievement percentages remained comparable to rates of achievement of their
partially mainstreamed peers. Also, the dramatic reduction in microsessions
may have been too great fo.- these children. In summary, the majority of
children in the sample achieved objectives at the same or higher percentages
in the totally mainstreamed classroom, while the need for adults to conduct
onetoone sessions was markedly reduced.
Effectiveness with Children, 1986-87. A comparison of the progress of
children with handicaps in partial and total reverse mainstreamed classes
and children without handicaps was conducted during Year Three, as a part of
the FMS Model Demonstration Project's Evaluation Plan. In September, 1986,
children with handicaps enrolled in the CHIPP Program were assigned to
partial mainstream classes or total reverse mainstreamed classes.
Chronological ages, mental ages and gender *,sere matched as closely as
possible and nonhandicapped peers were recruited to provide age and gender
matched peers (control group). The mean chronological age and the range of
ages for each classroom, and the mean mental age and ranges of mental ages
for each classroom are listed in Appendix A. The children in all of the
classrooms (partial and total reverse mainstreaming) were observed daily
during playtime, using the FMS Social Interaction Observation System
(Appendix B). A summary of the mean percentage of appropriate social
reciprocal interactions observed in children in the partial and the total
reverse mainstreamed groups is summarized in Tables 3 and 4, and Figures 2a
and 2b.
!Duration,i
.
.
:Class
..
:ReciprocalSocial
Interactions., ..
Fall
TRM135 I 25.59
(0-100)
Control134 I 27.55
(0-100)
PRM172 I 6.30
(0-71.4)
IWinter
TRM183 1 15.25
(0-66.6) .
Control22 40.01I
(0-66.6)
PRM.
97 I 5.21(0-50)
Spring
TRM193 1 13.83
(0-91.6)
Control27 29.90I
(0-83.3)
PRM
-7171
178 I 6.89(0-83.3)
Fall
TRM18.22
(0-100)
- Spring Control 183 32.49I
(0-100)
PRM 447 I 6.24(0-83.3)
Table 3 - Mean percentages and ranges of reciprocal socialinteractions for the Partial and Total ReverseMainstreaming and Control Groups
:44
)Range'
Duration ClassCooperative
Play
Fall
TRM 135 1 15.5(0-91.6)
Control134 I .13.37
(0-66.6)
PRM172 I 6.29
(0-71.4)
TRM183 I 9.81
(0-75)
Winter Control 22 I 22.83
J0-58.3)
PRM 97 I 3.29(0-50)
TRMX193 ( 8.67
J0-91.6)
Spring Control27 26.11
(0-83.3)
PRM178 I 3.50
(0-63.3)511 11.32
TRM(0-91.6)
Fall - Spring183' 20.77
Control(0-83.3)
447 4.36PRM
(0-71.4)
Table 4 - Mean percentages and ranges of cooperative playinteractions for the Partial and Total ReverseMainstreaming and Control Groups
35
36
45
40
35
30
25 ...
..1.111.
20
15
10
5
Reciprocal Interactions
Fall Winter Spring
if
Fall - Spring
Figure 2a. The quarterly mean percent of reciprocal interactions for thePartial and Total Reverse Mainstreaming and Control Groups
Key
41111111111101
Partial Reverse MS
Total Reverse MS
Control
3 8
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
Cooperative Play
Fall Winter Springril
Fall - Spring
Figure 26. The quarterly mean percent of cooperative play interactions for thePartial and Total Reverse Mainstreaming and Control Groups
Key
3 9
34
As shown in Tables 3 and 4, and Figures 2a and 2b5 children with
handicaps in a total reverse mainstream classroom interacte,: appropriately
with their peers more often than children with handicaps in a partial
mainstream classroom. By the end of the first quarter, all of the children
in the control and total reverse mainstreaming groups had increased their
levels of appropriate reciprocal social interactions. Children in the total
reverse mainstream classrooms demonstrated an increase in positive
reciprocal social behavior, whereas their peers in the partial reverse
mainstreaming classrooms did not. These trends continued throughout the
year. However, the level of reciprocal interaction increased over the
quarters of the year by the control group; whereas, it decreased for the
total reverse mainstreaming group. In addition, the level of cooperative
play for the three groups was similar to their level of reciprocal
interaction; i.e., increasing frta quarter-to-quarter for the control group,
decreasing over time for the TRM group (although considerably higher than
for the PRM group), and remaining low for the PRM group.
Progress in the area of overall development was assessed using a pre-
post-test design. All of the children were administered the Battelle
Developmental Inventory, the Developmental Programming for Infants snd Young
Children (DPIYC), the Prograw Assessment Planning Guide (PAPG) Social and
Social Language Subtests, the Mainstreaming Expectations and Skill
Assesssment-Preschool Kindergarten (MESA-PK), and the Peabody Fite and Gross
Motor Subtests (Control subjects did not get these 2 subtests), in
September, December, March, and at the end of May. In addition, the mean
number of microsessions conducted per week and the mean percentage of IEP
40
35
goals (for the partial and total reverse mainstream groups) completed were
computed for each quarter (i.e., September to December, December to March,
and March to.May). These results are summarized in Figures 3a & b through
11a & b and Table 5. The children with handicaps, in both the total and
partial mainstream classrooms, showed gains from September to May on all
assessment instruments, as well as making progress on IEP goals (See Figures
3-11). The children in the total reverse mainstreaming classrooms made mere
progress than the children in the partial reverse mainstreaming classrooms
on the Battelle, the DPIYC, the PAPG Social and Social Language Subtests,
the Peaboay Fine and Gross Motor Subtests, and on the MESA PK. In addition,
they required 48% fewer onetoone microsessions and progress on IEP goals
was comparable. The children in the partial reverse mainstreaming (PRM)
classrooms did not make more progress than the children in the total reverse
mainstreaming (TRM) classrooms on any tests given. The gains made by the
children who were not handicapped were: 1) larger than the gains made for
children in the PRM or TRM classrooms on the Battelle Developmental
Inventory; 2) considerably less on the DPIYC than for either other group; 3)
consideraby less on the PAPG and Social Subtests than the TRM group, and
more than the PRM group; higher for the PAPG Social Language Subtest to both
the TRM and PRM group; and 4) less on the MESAPK than either group. Gross
and fine motor testing, microsessions, and IEP goals were not relevant to
the children without handicaps, since such data were not collected on this
group. It was also demonstrated that all children continued to make
developmental gains, indicating that the mainstreamed program is not
detrimental to the participating children and is, in fact, very beneficial.
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
MM..
MI=
NMIN
NMI.
1 MN
IIMM
1
MEND
111,
MIRO
Battelle Developmental Inventory (BDI)
Sept.
Key
Dec. Mar. May Sept.-May
Figure 3a. The mean raw scores in months on the Battelle Developmental Inventoryfor the Partial and Total Reverse Mainstreaming and Control Groups
.42
r. 43
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
Developmental Programming for Infants and Young Children (DPIYC)
Sept. Dec. Mar.' Not Administered in September. Results for the children without handicaps
are a comparison of December to May.
Figure 4a. The mean raw scores on the DPIYC for the Partial and Total ReverseMainstreaming and Control Groups
May Sept.-May
Key
Partial Reverse MS
Total Reverse MS
Control
44
260
240
220
200
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
''ii) 45
Program Assessment and Planning Guide (PAPG) / Social
i
Sept. Dec. Mar. May
Figure 5a. The mean scores on the PAPG Social Subtest for the Partialand Total Reverse Mainstreaming and Control Groups
Sept.-May
Key
Partial Reverse MS
Total Reverse-MS
Control
46
47
Program Assessment and Planning Guide (PAPG) / Social Language
Dec.
4.
Mar.
Key
:Partial Reverse MS
Total Reverse MS
Control
May
Figure 6a. The mean raw scores on the PAPG Social Language 'Subtest for thePartial and Total Reverse Mainstreaming and Control Groups
Sept.-May
48
260
240
220
200
FE'
(a 180
c00 160
c5140o120
100
80
60
40
20
Mainstreaming Expectations and Skills Assessment -Preschool/Kindergarten (MESA-PK) Key
Partial Reverse MS
Total Reverse MS
Control
Sept. Dec. Mar. May
Figure 7a. The mean raw scores on the MESA-PK for the Partial andTotal Reverse Mainstreaming and Control Groups
49
Sept.-May
co.cc0
60
55
50
45
402COM.
u)53
28 30u)cas 25a)2
20
15
10
1111=111111111,
Sept.
Peabody/Fine Motor
Dec. Mar. May
Figure 8a. The mean raw scores in months on the Peabody Fine Motor Subtest
5for the Partial and Total Reverse Mainstreaming Groups.
0
Sept.-May
Key
!II Partial Reverse MS
J Total Reverse MS
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
52
Peabody/Gross Motor
Sept.-Dec. Dec.-Mar.
_AIMar.-May Sept.-May
Figure 9a. The mean raw gains in months on the Peabody Gross Motor Subtestfor the Partial and Total Reverse Mainstreaming Groups
Key
-) 3
54
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Microsessions
Sept.-Dec. Dec.-Mar. Mar.-May Sept.-May
Figure 10a. The mean number of microsessions for the Partial and Total ReverseMainstre.. :ing Groups
50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
MOO
Individualized Education Plan (IEP)
vir
Sept.-Dec. Dec.-Mar, Mar.-May Sept.-May
Figure 11 a . The mean percentage of IEP goals completed for the Partialand Total Reverse Mainstreaming and Control Groups
Key
5 7
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
1 8
Battelle Dwelopmental Inventory (BDI)
Sept.-Dec. Dec.-Mar. Mar.-May Sept.-May
Figure 3b. The mean gains in months on the Battelle Developmental Inventoryfor-the-Partial and Total-Reverse-Mainstreaming and-Control Groups
Developmental Programming for Infants and Young Children (DPIYC)
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
....
MOD
MIND
IMMI
MM.
WWII.
PIIMIN
=WM
IMMO
NNW*
1=01
60
Sept.-Dec. Dec.-Mar. Mar.-May Sept.-May' Not Administered in September. Results for the children without handicaps
are a comparison of December to May.
Figure 4b. The mean gain in months on the DPIYC for the Partial and Total ReverseMainstreaming and Control Groups
Key
61
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
-5
Program Assessment and Planning Guide (PAPG) / Social
Sept.-Dec. Dec.-Mar. Mar.-May Sept.-May
Figure 5b. The mean gains in months on the PAPG Social Subtest for the Partialand Total Reverse Mainstreaming and Control Groups
Key
r3 3
30
25
200.0CC2 15c
Program Assessment and Planning Guide (PAPG) / Social Language
Sept.-Dec. Dec.-Mar. Mar.-May Sept.-May
Figure 6b. The mean gains in months on the PAPG Social Language Subtest forthe Partial and Total Reverse Mainstreaming and Control Groups
Key
6s
60
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
-5
Mainstreaming Expectations and Skills Assessment -Preschool/Kindergarten (MESA-PK)
Sept.-Dec. Dec.-Mar. Mar.-May Sept.-May
Figure 7b. The mean gains in months on the MESA-PK for the Partialand Total Reverse Mainstreaming and Control Groups
Key
6 .t'/
f3 8
2221
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
1312
11
10
9
87
6
5
4
3
2
Peabody/Fine Motor
Sept.-Dec. Dec.-Mar. Mar.-May Sept.-May
Figure 8b. The mean gains in months on the Peabody Fine Motor Subtestfor the Partial and Total Reverse Mainstreaming Groups.
Key
Partial Reverse MS
Total Reverse MS
n 9
13
12
11
10U)
902_
0
CD2
r 70
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Peabody/Gross Motor
Sept.-Dec. Dec.-Mar. Mar.-May Sept.-May
Figure 9b. The mean gains in months on the Peabody Gross Motor Subtestfor the Partial and Total Reverse Mainstreaming Groups
Key
71
72
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
Microsessions
Sept.-Dec. Dec.-Mar. Mar.-May Sept.-May
Figure 10b. The mean number of microsessions for the Partial and Total ReverseMainstreaming Groups
50%
45%
40% r-
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
74
5%
Individualized Education Plan (IEP)
Sept.-Dec. Dec.-Mar. Mar.-May Sept.-May
Figure 11b. The mean percentage of IEP goals completed for the Partialand Total Reverse Mainstreaming and Control Groups
iiiatjon, . Crass .OPt'PPIYP '
PAPG/osc*s
PAPG/'Soo:Lan.-MESA
-P1(
Peabody/Peabody/ Peabody/.oroiii
.Micro.seastona MP
Sept-Dec
ss.I. -,-,:---..s" ,.tcsm::z...s..,',;-,, -,
24 +3.9 (Zi +3,72
tol4)16 -4.52 16 +5.52 24 +23.8 23 +7.02 3 +2.83 3 7.44 22 3.36%
t-4t011) (-1 (-52to44) (-23to37) (-30to79) (-1 to16.5 (-8 to 12) (0to18) (Oto75%):s.' :.':/::,:..",:,,,FoltraU
-, ::
22 +5.4 NotAdm.
0+5.38 '21.27.46 .+16.58 Not
121_119.36%
(0to85%)
(-3 to14) (-16to53) (5 to 62) (-27to70) Applicabl:-.._..0,
18 7.67: ' ss';'-",'M"f +2.8 11'8 +2.61
'0 to 9/141.56 M+16.33
(-9 to 87)M.36.05 111+3.66
(0 to 11)17 +3.15
(0 to 8) (-22to52) (-121o98) (0 to 12) (Oto17)
Dec-Mar
. ,:.<.: +1.0 22 +2.82
to 6)li 17.17 23 16.17 23 15.78 21 +7.67 9E+4.28 El 7.48 2117.75%
(-6to13)-.71
(-1 (-36to66) (-48t054) (-24to53) (-3 to 16) (0 to 13) (Otol3) (Oto100%,.s.
s ,tontiOt.;:,...,,,..12J +3.31 116_1+3.12 ts_14-11.25
to 6) (-15to54)Ed+3.43 t_1+5.94
(-58to37)Not
(-4 to12) (+1 (-52to36) Applicabl:cpszRm":
,...,, '
Id +.35 M +3,21 Ef23.22 /114.12,33 /E+28.89 E +5.21 19 +2.08 22 10.59 13.24%(-2 to 9) JO to 7) (-45to82) (-44to52) (-12to74) (-.5to13) (-7 to 6.5) (Oto23) (Oto100%)
Mar-May
irili',/ "s,
.1.71.5-1 +3.9 +3.91 tJ +4.6
to 9) (-37to84)1D+8.28 El +.32
(-35to26)C1+5.56
(-1to18.5El +5.27 36.23 022.79%
(Oto100%,(-2 to28) (-1 (-72t047) (-2 to 14) (Oto15),,,;::. .:7-',:.:,
601,1;,1:Ai +3.83 1-?J
(-2+2.35 M-1.37 o_4.74
(-41to29)El +3.4
(-34to62)Not
(-4 to17 to14) (-16to32 Applicabl:AI +2.79 19 +2.47 Elf-20.68 D+4.31 0-6.05 1:=1 +2.7
(-109to33: (-1 to 9)16 +1.44 m14.33 020.15%001,4:".:
..-: (-3 to10) (0 to 5) (-46to94) (-28to63) (-2 to 7) (2to21) (Oto100%
-imi:"'-g.6-1+10-15 -22-100.05 ILL](1 to 23) (5 to 16)
+16 18 23.44 24 41.92 1.21121.05 18 12.94 2 6 36 t.2_142%(Oto100%)(-2t045) (-2to68) (+3to89) (2to39.5) (-1 to 32) (.67to14)
Sept -May16
: - 7 +12.23 11 +4.56 -0+19.8Both
/M +25 E+24.25 Not99M.r.0.1.,..,,, . (0 to (+2 to 51) (-40to80) (-13to85) Applicablz
..........___4.
.:Ai +6.22PRM:(-1 to16) (3
+9.06 0-49.54 [122.92 0-59.25 0+9.74 12 +5.17 16 2.31 035.67%(Oto100 %)to 23) (3 to101) (7 to 45) (-48t0120: (0 to 23) (-3 to 15) (8to18.33)
76
Table 5 - Summary of mean gains on all tests for all subjects in all groups.
TRM = Total Reverse Mainstreamed Classroom
PRM ::: Partial Reverse Mainstreamed Classroom
* = December to May comparison
N. meanrange
77
55
Statistical Significance. A twofactor repeated measures analysis of
variance was'conducted on the data obtained across all assessment
instruments for the four separate testings (September, December, March, and
May across the three groups). The p values for each test (or subtest), and
for the repeated measure were significant at the .0004 level (see Appendix C
for the analysis date). A Fisher PLSD and a Scheffe Ftest were then
conducted on all tests /subtests between scores obtained by the partially and
totally mainstreamed groups, the partially mainstreamed and control group
and the totally mainstreamed and control group. Table 6 provides a summary
of the statistical significance obtained (Appendix C provides the complete
data). The majority of comparisons (193 of 230) for which data were
available were statistically significant at the .05 level on both the Fisher
PLSD and the Scheffe Ftest.
Summary of Child Progress Data. Table 5 provides a summary of the
gains made on each area by each group and Figures 3a-11a provide the changes
in raw test scores across groups across quarters and Figures 3b-11b provide
the changes in gains across quarters and groups. The data indicate that
each group generally made gains on each retesting, but that gains were not
consistent within or across groups. Clearly each group made gains across
time with the largest gains being made by children in the control groan
(nonhandicapped), followed closely by children in the totally mainstreamed
group, and the gains made were the smallest in the partially mainstreamed
group.
78
Table 6. Fisher PLSD and Scheffe T-Test findings across groups and assessment instruments across quarters.
ComparisonGroups
statisticalTest for
Significanc.
BDI(Months
DPIYC(Items
PAPG/Soc.(Points)
PAPG/Soc.Lang.(Points)
MESA-PK(Points
ept-s:
Dec-
kirWar-May
Sept-May
Veen
GainsSept-Vec
# - -
.:
War-
Way
Sept-Way
VanGains
Sept-Dec
Dec-Ma
Mar-May
Sept-i.by
Mean
GainsSept-Oec
Dec-Mar
Mar-May
ll
Sept-viay
WowGains
dept-Jec
Dec-Mar
Mar-Vey
Sept-May
WanGains
PartiallyMainstreamed
vs.Totally Mainstreamed
FisherPLSD
NS S S S S S S S S S S
ScheffeT-Test
S S S S S S S S S S NS S S S S S S S S S S
PartiallyMainstreamed
vs.Controls
FisherPLSD
ND S S S S S S S S S SSSSSSScheffeT-Test
no S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S
TotallyMainstreamed
VS.
Controls
FisherPLSD
S S S S S ND S S S S S SNSNSS NS S NS S S S S NS NS
ScheffeT-Test
ND S S S S NS S NS NS S NS S NS S S S S NS NS
S = Significant at .05Ns = Not Signigicant
ND = No Data
79 80
Continuation of Table 6. Fisher PLSD and Scheffe T-Test findings across groups and assessment instruments across quarters.
ComparisonGroups
StatisticalTest for
SIgnIficanc
Peabody/Fine(Months
Peabody/Gross(Months)
Microsesslons(Total /Week)
IEP(% of goals achieved)
Social OL.aervation(Reciprocal Interactions)
Social Observation(Cooperative Play)
alpt-Dec
Dec-
War
War-
bySept-Way
martGabs
Sept-Dec
Dec-
War
ar-.:
sem-Way
:,.
: OS
Sept-DOC
Dec-Ma'
Mar-nay
NSW3ains
Sept-Der
Dec-Mar
Mar-Ma y
Wean
lainsSept-DEC
Dec-
MarMar-May
Maztn
Galas
Sept-Dec
Dec-Mar
Mar-
thyMealSaha
PartiallyMainstreamed
vs.Totally Mainstreamed
FisherPLSD
S S S S S S S S S S NS S S S NS NS NS NS S NS NS S S NS NS S
ScheffeT-Test
sNS S S S NS NS NS NS S NS NS S S NS NS
PartiallyMainstroamed
vs.Controls
FisherPLSD
ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NI) ND
Schott'T-Test
ND ND ND ND NJ ND No ND ND ND ND ND KO ND ND ;41) ND ND
TotallyMalnEtreamed
VS.Controls
FisherPLSD
18,13 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND KO ND ND ND KO ND No ND KID ND NS s s s S NS S
ScheffeT-Test
KO ND ND ND ND ND KO ND KO ND ND ND KO ND ND ND ND ND NS S S S S NS
S s Significant at .05NS Not Slgniglcant
ND a No Data
58
AdditionalAdditional Child Progress Data. Some additional data on child progress
is of interest. After one quarter, 3 children were transferred from a
partial Mainstreamed classroom to a total mainstreamed classroom, and 7
children went from a total mainstreamed classroom to a partial mainstreamed
classroom. The children involved in these transfers were those that
teachers thought had beet placed in the wrong type of classroom. A summary
of the test, retest data for these children is presented in Tables 7 and 8,
respectively. The overall progress of some children .mproved in specific
areas after the transfer. For children who shifted from PRM to TRM, 2 did
better on the Battelle, 4 on the DPIYC, 5 on the PAPG Social, 3 on the PAPG
Social Language, 2 on the MESAPK, 6 on the Peabody Fine Motor, 3 on the
Peabody Gross Motor, 5 had more microsssions, and 5 achieved more IEP
goals. If one considers child progress on IEP goals to be the critical
variable, then at least 5 of the 8 children did better after being placed in
a to al reverse mainstream classroom. For children who shifted from the TRM
to PRM, 1 did better on the Battelle, 1 on the DPIYC, 6 on the PAPG Social
and Social Lan age, 4 on the MESAPK, 5 on the Peabody Fine Motor, 3 on the
Peabody Gross Motor, 1 had more microsessions, and 5 achieved more IEP
goals. Again, if IEP goal achievement is considered critical, then at least
5 of the 7 children did better after being placed in a partial reverse
mainstreamed classroom. It appears that teachers were able to accurately
select the appropriate placement for 10 of these 15 children.
Effectiveness with Parents. Reactions from parents of children with
and without handicaps have been obtained through Parent Satisfaction
Questionnaires conducted every three monals. Parents were asked to respond
Transfers from PRM Into TRM(n=8)
Table 7. Summary of mean gains and losses for the 8 children transterred from a Partially Mainstreamed to u Totally Mainstreamed classroom.
ubject BDI DPIYCt i
MESA-PK PeaIligiiiiiiilligg 1
ody/FMonths
ne
4,13333333.3333339.
embody/Gross
gni
Months
+2 +5
' crosess oneTotal/Week
,,,g)A 5 8 7 2415 C 40% 53%IN
e-12
.3333 33333933333333 Sept Doc- :sr;
:90;4'la) -1 +1_
+a :.i.i$:1 +4 +6 +15 :c ,,,,,,'.i.';i:.fi -36 +10 -22 rft 54 111 +41 48 -1 +14 +61 +11
,....,...,;+10 113
NH
e-7",;`,4"+tW.:. 0
-1 +4 +4;,",4.,2,",,,.: +2 +6 +10
* 4,le,A. :.::
+21 +16 +21;/,:
:150.4.,,
+22 +27 +34 +156. +5 +22 +83 :4;'4..44
+9 +2 +16."ti,..4 , +1 0 ;111 10 12 7 41":42.17% GI
CH
e-1 3,r-'Or.'.'4.',.'
-4 +8 +12 'a:£0
+2 +6 +9 :12'',..,, +10 +23 +45''.7','
'+15'%.4,e
0 +3 +8 '.;4i.i -7 +22 +60 .Z, +7.5 +3 12. 'e, +1 0,.s ...
',8.',,
15 8 9 Ai,,,
30%
$ SIHa- :,,',.4'w.f.;
+9 -2 +10 ,04.442, +2 +4 +8/74%,fr4,,.,:,,
+16 -23 -11 Eci_45 NotAim.
,- '-;43 +30 0 +83
.,,,,,,+2: +12 im,44
,.:' +6 0 +10 10%?/ 13 10 11 50% 54%
aoa." f-p.14 0 +7.--;,...fr:t, +2 +3 +6
,,,....,:A2 +35 +36 +19 .1. +2, -2 +22 +21; +31 -18 -34 11+5.5 +19 ,41'.
s.,./".+5 +7 +13 , - ; 0 2 67 12 3% :II
c°e-17
ti%.".::.'4
liter*
+2 +2 +8 +13 ,- ,.+8 -7 +1 +28 +13 -9 +32 +40 )1 -21 1:1:1
,16...,.....,
gm +3.5.,,
11 ,, al +6 igigliggpi ,, c 19% 52%
c°43°8-1 5 'TV' 4/ . . 'I4.,(''',
61118 red ''';2;',
-4f +1 .8 10121:11+45 MCIril +20 47, ;Si Iii +49 a's,.. ,,,. i;e, ',+2 gi ''''''''II/ ,:,..,..: Not 2 ig 6 5 = 0 .."
:Z,,-/e,,t3i .../4", .A 0 +1 ,,,f,4i.%?L.,X +4 r 1 3 At IN3 0 -2 ;:,11, al +3 +6 -.'fg gra +26 +40 .+2. +13 0 +15
..7"..:A2;1113 +1 +6,.
.1!1111 13%32%
TRM Ysnd roves
4414109
4 66210$
.7.431101
.2 42to4
.4.76Ho 6
10.26Io 16
/.2CO
.7.6623103
.1222104
.3 42to3
.2.14461o2
423 261641
11.471031
.4 4321101
65 034Io
II 46..1
.6 114ot;^
'21.112'61°.:. a $
2.411o4
.2.24Oto7
11
Ho2I9
01016 21o1623%
3106221%01050
43%21o4
PRM/and rigors
A".1....7i,EI/T707
' '72.01`
/NZ
al;Mt
"..".fi. '4,,,
'41'a Z,7,,,
iikPO4
OMoMt,,9,4
.6.03,4t11444 ,.:
VriIffal
aii-261
,ortt sti,slot
44..
'4,1,t A
%'''''1{,t(
&'.tl11°9
W.."ISVtot
,,.%;AV;Slats
*= transferred between December and March Testing.
= transferred bettkeen March acid May testhtg.
R4
8=11 - Partially Reversed Mainstreaming (PRM)
1-1= Total Reversed Mainstreaming (TRM)
0
Transfers from TRM Into PRM(n=7)
1
TABLE S. Summary of moan pains and losses tor the 7 children transferred from a total mainstreamed to a partial mainstreamed classroom after one quarter.
Sublact BD,(Months)
DP(Deli)
YC PAPG/Soc.
Mopffry
Sept-Moy
PAPG/Soc.Lang
Sept.Doc
* O.-Miry
-Sept-Mty
Sept.Dec
MESA-PK.
Doc.filer
Mar-May
Sept-141/
Peabody/Anti
Sept-Dec
MaathalDec.Ma-
Mar-My
Sept-Mir
Peabody/Grose
Sept.Doc
D.>Met
I SOMy
MIcrosessloneTotal/Weak)
Sept.Doc
Dec-Mx
IEP(14 st 610616 sehl666.1)
i
b-11
opt. Ow-Mr
MafMy
Sept-kely
Sept.Dec
Doc.Vs
Mat144,
Sept.My
SeptOecDoc
IP.mkt
al. Sept-1./
7
Sept-Dec
Me,-My
opt-
.....f.+2 +5 +13
*,...t.::Ip145:%.'.?.?.%
+7 +2 +2314c4;-
It.<+82 +22
KatAdm.
Not.ilk +39 +10Not
Adm, -,,
$14 ++74 ++12 ++100-,,,,,t:, r+...i 7 5+ . + 3 - .12 5
'.. %.+4... +3 5 + 5 ++10 ii:'. 11 14 12
,"A:,,.....c
31% 44% 67%
b-4 tie( +2 +6 +8 ;S: +5 +2 +11*+n+V444 +24 +1 +11 .".:1:i1/<;+62'..'
+33 +95 Ai +1.5 -1 +2 A; 0 -3 +1 ;:* 10 2 8 ..:51, 37% 42% 60%
la-8;7,2/
-1 +1 0 +12 40 +7 +5 +20...;;./.:.*44'./..
-45 +94 +93..x+It-./. +20 0 +31
.,;,"'+79.4/ -6 +35 +108
,.4,....+3.5 +3"+7.5 1:.... .4 +1 +2 +4
:...:..:' e,1 .1
T.f..;10 20 15
:./.4.;,1)..:.'. 1. 10% 15% 22%
b-8 +1 +4 +6 'f,l; +2 +1 +5 ',..".1,.',,,..
+66 +36 +101 +18 +33 -5 +38 s+18.,....-,,
+6' +27 +112 ,+51t 1
+9 +4 +18 ,4:.i: '
+4 0 +6.:-.171;It> 10 16 14 '9,4
: 1'.f.:
6% 39% 43%
b-112 -5 +10 +16/.0.//,$44, +1 +3 +5 :,1);:',. +48 +38 +86 ,..21", +28 +3 +10 .41 +36 +29 +106
/.2.A:4 -2.5 Not Wm. ,k,s:.. +6 Not '.dm.
.:.-y vi 10 16 12 ,.10%) 10% 20%
b1
/
0/',,E.',.'4'
+2 -3 -1 +1w,:s 0 +3 +4 03 +48 +30 +65 At.., +52 -19 +8 ;$1 +66 +12 +48 ,)1...'4,.. +2 Not kt ,. '44". 0 Not Wm. ,',1'....;'
.p. ...1
11 16 9 '5', 20% 15% 22%
si (;:20.:, +2 0 +5
, , ,A42i, 42 +2 +6
flat'ik;iii6;
...+82 -46
NotAdm. Aiitif. -7 +12 .36 +25.109 -48
ie:..t1:,'' ....-
+8 +2.5 9.5 AB +4 +1 +8.5.., .:18,
,.: fr.' _10 14 14
. e.23.14,..",.
6% 22% 33%
Irtold moo.,
:IRoast,
%.5.,/
.264102
.1 6731010
.6 1211016
git.;(1$61'
'.
.3 /3Ole.
.2 6711oS
.10 6711023
,T641:T31o61
4116 3V,,461°1 -;;;'
ii.:270.;
"34,14,:f,
2771062
;!/1',3°
II 661036
Air:.:77::
''
.4826Mon
1121:
.3";"7,42'.:1,11--;;; A1140.2
.4.146100
.2 3-1104
.0 021016
A, *214.614: 010:
;%
1
410216 011010
fi.f.11668;'10to11
10 1121020
1261016
r.ill.: 17%6!0,3, 61020
27%101044
38%201067
All subjects transferred betwc3n December and March test ng.
a)
of r-.0ro
E-1
= Total Reverse Mainstreaming (TRM)
= Partially Reversed Mainstreaming (PRM)
61
to five questioLi indicating the qu:dity of service that they perceive that
their child received; one question about their desire to continue in the
program, and to six openended questions about reactions to working in the
classroom, the strengths and difficulties with the program, recommended
changes, and any other concerns or observations. Responses of parents to
the five objective questions on the questionnaire are listed in Tables 9a
and 9b. The actual questions are shown on Tables 9c and 9d. Overall, the
responses to the program were very positive. In addition, the satisfaction
data were very similar for both the parents of children with handicaps and
the parents of children without handicaps. A summary of responses to the
openended questions is presented in Appendix D.
Mean Parent Satisfaction Data to Objective Questionsby Quarter and Year.
Effectiveness with Staff. Feedback on staff satisfaction hs!s also been
obtained from participating staff at the end of each quarter. A summary of
responses from the last six quarters (1986 and 1987) is included in Table
10. Each of the staff in the mainstream classrooms were asked to respond to
eight questions indicating how much they agreed or disagreed with each
statement. Overall, reactions to the FMS Mainstreaming Program were
extremely posi ive from all teachers. The particular strengths of the FMS
Model noted by staff included the o ortutzities to group children for
language, the level of social development by children, and for children to
learn to attend and work in gorups. The difficulties noted with the
Mainstreaming Program were the large amount of paperwork and testing
(required to evaluate the model, but not necessary thereafter), initially
88
Table 9a EMS CI-IIPP Iritegrated Preschool Classrooms
Parent Satidactioh Questionnaire-Results
(Old Questionnaire form)
School Year 85 - 86
ii,:5=*
N(T) =9
N (H) =4
N(NH) =5
Fall
N(T) =10
N (H) =5
N(NH) =5
Winter
N(T) =19
N (H) = 8
N(NH) =11
Spring
N (r) = 38
N (H) = 17
N (NH) = 21
Total Mean(Fall, Winter, Spring)
X (T) = 2.13X (H) = 2.0!)
X(NH) = 2.25
N =8 N (NH) =4
X(T) =1.70X(H) = 1.80
X(NH) = 1.58
X(T) 2 1.26X(H) = 1.38
X(NH) =1.18
X(T) =1.80X(H) =1.63
X(NH) = 2.50
NM =10 N(NH)=21Nm=
X(T) =1.74X(H) =1.63
X(NH) = 1.82
X(T) =1.59X(H) = 1.65
X(NH) = 1.49
NM = 17 N(H) =17 N(NH) = 20
X(T) =1.78X(H) = 1.79
X(NH) =1.75
18 N(H) =14 N(NH) = 4
X(T) =1.90X(H) =1.77
X(NH) = 2.00
X(T) = 2.00X(H) = 1.64
X(NH) =1.70
U = 2 N(H) = 2 NINH) = 0
X(T) =1.67X(H) = 2.00
X(NH) =1.00
NM =6 N(H) =4 N(NH) = a
X(T) =1.90X(H) =1.80
X(NH) = 2.003
X(T) = 2.22X(H) = 2.00
X(NH) = 2.40
4.
X(T) = 2.00ii(H) =1.75
X(NH) = 2.20
X(T) = 2.20X(H) F. 2.40
X(NH) = 2.00
X(T) = 1.89X(H) =1.75
X(NH) = 2.00
X(T) = 2.00X(H) =1.94
X(NH) = 2.05
T = total group size H = parents of children with handicaps N = parents of children without handicaps
1 = excellent 2 = good 3 = average 4 = fair 5 = poor
Table 9b
FMS CH! rrslntegrated Preschool Classrooms
Parent Satisfaction Questionnaire Results
School Year 86 - 870C0CD
fa0=*
N(T) =21N(H) =11
N (NH) =19
Fall
N(T) =22
N(H) =11
N (NH) =11
Winter
N(T) =6N(H) = 2
N (NH) =4
Spring
N(T)= 49
W(H)=24
ig (NH) = 25
Total Mean_yall, Winter, Spring)
X('T) = 1.38X(H) =1.56
X(NH) =1.20
X(T) = 1.62
X(11) =1.61X(NH) =1.64
X (ID = 1.43
X (H) =173X(N11) =1.10
X(T) = 1.64X(H) =1.64
X(NH) = 1.70
X(1) = 1.39
X(H) =1.41X(NH) = 1.36
X(T) = 1.61
X(H) =1.59X(NH) = 1.64
X(T) = 1.17X(H) =1.5
X(NH) =1.0
X(T) = 1.5
X(H) =1.5X(NH) = 1.52.
3.
X(T) =1.05X(H) =1.09
X(NH) =1.03
X(T) =1.0X(H) =1.0
X(NH) = 1.0
X(T) =1.0X(H) =1.0
X(NH) =1.0
X(T) :1.02
X(H) =1.04X(NH) =1.00
4.
All yes responses All yes responsesNM = 20
N(H) = 9
An yes responses All yes responsesN(T) = 47
N(H) = 22
T =total group size H = parents of children with handicaps N = parents of children without handicaps
1 = excellent 2 = good 3 = average 4 = fair 5 = poor
Table 9c
64
Functional Mainstreaming flr Success
Parent Satisfaction Questionnaire
I. How would you rate the education provided to your child through theMainstream Preschool?
1 2 3 4 5
Excellent GEO ATT.W Fair FEW
2. If your child received individualized services, how would you rate yourimpressions of the programming provided to your child by the MainstreamPreschool staff?
0 1 2 3 4 5
Not Applicable Excellent GSUU Average Fair F657-
3. How would you rate your interactions with Mainstream reschool staff?(Only Mainstream Preschool staff, not other DCHP preschool staff)
1 2 3 4 5
Excellent GEO KOFFW Fair FOP
4. How would you rate your child's social interactions with the otherchildren in the class?
1 2 3 4 5
Excellent GY5ff Average Fair FRF
5. Knowing what you now pow abou.. the Mainstream Preschool program,please circle one of-the following:
1
Glad-my childwas in theprogram
2
Wish my childhad been in aself-containedprogram (like
the CHIPPclassrooms)
3
WITITTITUtild hadbeen in a preschool
without otherchildren who havehandicaps
4
Don't know ordon't wish toanswer
6. If the Mainstream Preschool program were ffered year-round, for anominal fee similar to standard preschool fees, would you enroll yourchild? (No committment will be inferred from your response).
1
thoutreservationsabout themainstreamingtaking place
2
es, wiifi re-
servationsabout themainstreamingtaking place
93
3
No, I would not
enroll my childbecause I amconcerned aboutthe mainstreamingtaking place
4
Don't know ordon't wish toanswer
Table 9c(continued)
7. What things did you like about the Mainstream Preschool program?
8. What things did you dislike about the Mainstream preschool program?
65
9. What specific concerns, if any, did you have about mainstreaming beforeyour chip started in the cprogram? Did nese things happen?
10. Any other comments will be most welcomed.
Thank you!
7/85
94
4.
Table 9d
CHIPP-FMSParent Satisfaction Questionnaire
66
How uJuld you rate the program that your child received at the CHIPP preschool?
1
Excellent2
Good3
Average4
Fair5
Poor
How would you rate your interactions with CHIPP preschool staff? (Only your child'sstaff, not other DCHP preschool staff).
1
Excellent2
Good3
Average4
Fair5
Poor
Knowing what you now know about the CHIPP program, please circle one of the following:
Glad my childwas in theintegratedprogram
2
Wish my child hadbeen in a non-integratedspecial educationclassroom
3
Wish my child hadbeen in a preschoolwithout childrenwho have handicaps
4
Don't know or don'twish to answer
Did your child like the program? Yes No . If not, please indicate why.
If you worked in the, classroom, answer question 5; if you did not work in the classroom, goon to question 6.
5. What was your reaction to working in the classroom? Did you feel comfortable withyour assigned responsibilities? Do you think you need more training?
6. What things did you like about the CHIPP program?
7. What specific concerns, if any, did you have about mainstreaming before your childstarted in the program? Did these things happen?
. What things would you like to change about the CHIPP program?
. Does year child have a handicapping condition? yes no
Thank you! 9/86
95
67
the lack of materials (different startup materials reqUired for
mainstreaming vs. selfcontained classrooms), and the need to train college
students and some classroom aides to conduct the specific activities
(particularly behavior managment).
Table 10
Mean Staff Satisfaction with the Mainstreaming Programfor the Last Six Quarters (1986-1987).
STAFF SATISFACTION FORM
Version I
Your feedback is critical to the success of future mainstreamingactivities. Please take a moment to complete this form about themainstreaming activity in which your student(s) participated. Please
indicate your response to each item by circling one choice:
1. Generally, I feel positive lbout the mainstreaming activity inwhich we participated.
+2 +1 1 2Agree Agree Disagree DisagreeStrongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly
2. The children in my classroom/program reacted positively to themainstreaming activity.
Agree Agree Disagree DisagreeStrongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly
3. I understand the purpose(s) for the mainstreaming activity whichtook place.
Agree Agree Disagree DisagreeStrongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly
4. I think the benefits significantly outweighed any inconveniencesof this mainstreaming activity.
TOTALS
1.9
1.85
1.95
Agree Agree Disagree Disagree 1.75
Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly
96
Table 10 (continued)
5. I was given the opportunity to be as involved as I wished to be,in planning and carrying out this mainstreaming.
Agree Agree Disagree DisagreeStrongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly
6. I felt that the FMS project staff were supportive and helpful
throughout this mainstreaming activity.
Agree Agree Disagree DisagreeStrongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly
7. I feel that the interactions that resulted from this activitybetween children with and without handicaps, were positive andbeneficial toall the children.
Agree Agree Disagree DisagreeStrongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly
8. I feel competent to carry out a similar mainstreaming activity bymyself, without FMS project staff involvement.
Agree Agree Disagree DisagreeStrongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly
9. I estimate that approximately 96.2% (insert a percentage number)of the children in my class/program are appropriate for participa-tion in this type of mainstreaming activity. (If you feel thatsome children are not appropriate for this activity, please brieflyindicate why.) Not appropriate for those kids without demonstratedskills of basic attending and limitation of models. Not appropriatefor physically aggressive kids. More severely involved kids require1-1 learning situations.
10. I saw the following strengths in this activity: Lang. models, socialskills models, differences learned. Increase in activities, speech.Good peer models. Behavior controlled by natural consequences.
Great language development. Plenty of opportunity for social inter-action. Children working in groups with others who have similar
skill objectives. Social involvement, group activities, sittingin circle, standing in line, waiting for turn.
11'. I saw the following weaknesses in this activity: Extra staff, tomuch paperwork and testing. Be more prencriptive and individualized.Too much time to plan activities. IPP process needs better utiliza-tion (not a TEAM yet). Lack of materials at the Center. Classeswere not organized at the beginning (spent first 1/2 quarter tryingto get things straight). Difficult class due to varying levels ofperformance. May need to look at restructuring schedule again.
97
68
1.55
1 . 7
1.8
1 . 7
Table 10 (continued)
"So mach to do in so little time" (Repeated on 2 other forms).
Need more time and help in training student personnel. Still need
a little better behavior management from some classroom workers.
12. In future activities of this type, I would change or recommend thefollowing: Going well as is. Testing staggered throughout year.Better funding of program. Utilize parents in classrooms (as arequirement for child enrollment). These are already being changed,but for the record: 1) Screen incoming students; 2) Classes organized
with complete lists and materials at least 2 weeks before classbegins; 3) Teacher allotted more time to complete paperwork.(This is not in reference to le,son plans, curriculum needs, orparent communication.)
. Any other comments are welcome. Thank you!
Description of FMS Transition Approach.
The FMS Transition approach is based on the premise that a successful
transition occurs only when all parties involved are prepared for the new
placement, are active participants in the transition process, and continue
to have resources and open lines of communication after placement occurs.
The process of preparation in the FMS Transition approach begins by
identifying a child who is suitable for transition and by identifying a
potential receiving site. The child's present teacher then completes a
Mainstreaming Expectation and Skills Assessment-Preschool and Kindergarten
Edition (MESA-PK), indicating the child's relative level of proficiency for
a number of behaviors. A potential receiving teacher then indicates whether
each behavior on the checklist is critical, desirable, or unimportant in
that teacher's classroom. Information from the MESA-PK provides the
potential receiving teacher with an initial glimpse of the child, and.an
opportunity to react to that child's profile. It also provides a special
98
70
educator with information about theme expectations of staff in a receiving
environment,-and training needs for receiving staff.
A second component of preparation involves use of the Classroom
Environment Observation System (CEO) (see Project Manual). The CEO is a
checklist to guide an individual who observes in a potential receiving
environment, to assure that aspects of that environment relevant to the
child's disability are noted. The information from the'CE0 is used to
determine what adaptations in the environment will be needed.
A third component of preparation is the Child's Profile (see Project
Manual). The Child Profile is completed by the special educator and
provided to the receiving teacher as a brief sketch of critical
characteristics of the child. The Child Profile augments the information on
the MESAPK by providing critical details of the child's medical and
physiological functioning, specific language or motor strengths and
difficulties, and a very brief educational history. The previously
mentioned instruments provide teaching and support staff in both agencies
(sending and receiving) with precise, critical information to facilitate
transition. As a result of the MESAPK and CEO, the target child can be
better prepared for the change in placement.
Parent preparation is another critical feature of the FMS Transition
Approach. Materials developed by the FMS Project that answer the most
commonly asked questions about transition are made available to parents.
The parents are expected to assume an active role in the transition process,
which includes accompanying the child to the potential receiving setting to
acquaint the child with that environment, contributing goals and objectives
99
71
to facilitate the transition process, and assisting or conducting
preparation activities for students (peers) at the receiving site.
The last group for whom preparation must be addressed are the peers in
a receiving environment. The FMS Project has developed puppet shows (See
Project Manual) with accompanying discussions to acquaint children with
handicapping conditions and to allow them to have opportunities to ask about
the new child. Preparation activities in the FMS Transition Model are not
assumed to be sufficient for promoting social interactions; rather, they
serve as an ice-breaker and to provide information to young children about
handicapping conditions. The puppet shows are conducted in the classroom by
the teacher, aides, and/or parents. The scripts developed by the FMS
Project are included in the Project Manual.
Effectiveness of the FMS Transition Approach.
The FMS Project has followed 16 children who were helped to transition
from either a self-contained special educnion preschool or from the FMS
Reverse Mainstream classrooms into public senools in the summer of 1986.
The handicapping conditions of the children who have made transitions range
from mild communication disorders and behavioral problems, to severe
multiple handicaps with autism. Children have made transitions into a total
of ten schools across Cache, Logan, and the Box Elder School Districts.
Effectiveness with Children. Nine of the 16 children (56%) who had
handicaps and were in the transition program entered directly into regular
public school kindergarten. (All nine were participants in the FMS Total or
Partial Transition activities.) Of these children who entered kindergarten,
100
72
one child had severe multiple handicaps, including autism, and others were
children with communicative disorders, behavioral disorders, and orthopedic
handicaps. The rest of the children (7) in the sample entered self
contained special education classrooms in their district public schools.
Monitoring of child progress occurred again for 9 of the 16 children in
June of 1987. Seven parents did not respond to questionnaires nor could
they be contacted by telephone because of summer vacations, changes of
address, etc. Followup findings indicate that children in regular
kindergarten classrooms are demonstrating behaviors which are appropriate
for group instruction in kindergarten. During the first year of followup,
none of the children; who were in a kindergarten placement were nominated for
return to a more restrictive environment. Of the 9 children for whom
followup data are available, 4 will enter a regular first grade and 5 will
be in a selfcontained classroom. These data are similar to those for
original placements. An additional group of 16 children (14 from a total
reverse mainstream classroom and 2 from a PRM classroom) will be leaving the
program in August 1987. Nine of the children from a TRM classroom will L4
going to regular kindergarten, 2 into resource rooms and 3 into a self
contained program. The 2 children leaving a PRM classroom, will enter a
selfcontained classroom in the district with recommendation for partial
mainstreaming having been made to the receiving school.
Evidence of Effectiveness with Parents. Parents''evaluations of
transition placements were obtained from 9 parents. Feedback from parents
indicates that the parent information brochure addressing mainstreaming
concerns (see Project Manual) is viewed by parents as an excellent resource
101
73
to answer their questions; the early discussions of mainstreaming and
preparation utilized by FMS has better prepared parents to advocate for
their child's mainstreaming in public school; and having parents assume an
active role (e.g., parents conducting peer preparation activities) has
resulted in greater communication among parents of children with handicaps,
other parents, and their child's teacher. Eight of the 9 parents were
satisfied with transition activities and the actual placement of their child
for this past year. One parent was satisfied with the transition, but not
the actual placement due to personality conflicts with the teacher. Eight
parents were also pleased with the placcaent of their child for the 1987-88
school year.
Evidence of Effectiveness with Teachers and Other Staff. The FMS
Transition Approach was used with 8 of the 16 children who entered public
school (7 of the 9 parents who responded to the followup questionnaire were
from the transition group). Information and feedback on the FMS materials
(MESAPK, Child Profile, and CEO) was collected. The findings indicate that
the MESAPK is informative and teachers like the opportunity to indicate
their expectations for children in their classrooms. The Child Profile has
been very well received by the teachers who have been polled. They indicate
that the information is brief and very useful, and provides them with
critical data on a child which would otherwise be overlooked among the
papers in the average cumulative file. Special educators who use the CEO
report that it is useful in reminding them of details which would otherwise
be overlooked.
102
74
Accomylishments by Goals
The five goals of the FMS Project resulted in the following individual
products and methods.
Goal One. The Mainstreaming Expectations and Skills Assessment-
Preschool Kindergarten (MESA-PK) was developed in part from the En Trans
Checklist from teaching research in Monmouth, Oregon (Teaching Research
Associates, 1980. The MESA -PK is designed to communicate information about
a child to a potential receiving teacher in the process of transition; to
allow the teacher to report his/her expectations for the child; and to
provide the special educator with information for training the child to meet
the teacher's expectations, and to provide assistance and support to the
receiving teacher, as needed.
Goal Two. A Buddy System was developed and implemented which resulted
in improved pro-social interactions by low-interacting preschoolers and
kindergarteners. Incidental teaching and grouping procedures were used to
integrate preschoolers with and without handicaps. Peer tutoring was found
to be an activity which was too advanced for preschoolers, and was thus
discontinued in favor of the buddy program.
Goal Three. In the process of transition, children without handicaps
were introduced to handicapping conditions, in general, and to their new
classmates, in particular, by using puppetry and guided discussions
developed by the FMS Project. Recommendations for preparing parents of
children without handicaps for mainstreaming were outlined. These included
PTA presentations, school newspapers and flyers. Additionally, a brochure
103
75
was developed to provide more extensive information, as needed. Teacher
preparation was addressed through Goal One.
Goal Four. The parents of children without handicaps were prepared for
mainstreaming through written information provided by the FMS Project in a
parent brochure developed by the FMS Project. Additionally, parent meetings
were held to address concerns which arose from direct parent contact and
through written feedback collected every three months from participating
parents. The preparation of the target child was addressed through Goal One
(MESAPK process) and Goal Three (peer preparation).
Goal Five. Throughout the project, tnehers were provided
consultation, technical assistance and support, based on writen feedback
collected every three months from participating teachers.
For greater detail on accomplishments by goals and objectives, see the
FMS Tracking System which follows.
Project Staff Training Effectiveness.
The project staff conducted a weeklong workshop on mainstreaming in
June of 1986 (53 participants), and again in June of 1987 (23 participants).
Satisfaction with both workshops was high (see Appendix E for the
satisfaction data for 1987 and last year's progress report for the 1986
workshop satisfaction data).
104
76
Tracking System.
The FMS.Tracking System that follow shows in detail goals, objectives
and activities for the three years of operation of the FMS Project. It also
discusses review papers which were developed by the project. These review
papers are compiled into a separate document which is included in the final
report (See document entitled Literature Reviews on Functional Mainstreaming
for Success).
ins
F.M.S. Project Tracking System And Person Loading Chart
Ally 1, 1984 through June 30, 1987
10/85 8 is Behind Schedule
C Completed by Date Indicated
D = Activity Discontinued
I = Activity Initiated
0 = Ongoing
M = Modified: Activity/Wording/Date
Objectives & Activities Documentation
for Monitoring
Respon. Initia. Comple. Status
Party Date Date
General Pro ect Activities: Years One through Three'
0.1 Project Initiation
0.1.0 Establishing project name
0.1.1 Employ project staff
0.1.1.2 Establish desk/
work area
0.1.1.2.1 Distribute position
announcements
0.1.1.2.2 Interview
applicants
0.1.1.1 Complete personnel
forms on individuals
selected for positions
0.1.2 Establish management
system and implement it
0.1.2.1 Hold weekly
staff meetings
0.1.2.2 Review tracking system
at least once every 2
months; revise as needed
0.1.0 Written notification
of name delivered to DCHP
8usiness Office
0.1.1 Returned personnel and
affirmative action forms
0.1.2 Printouts of enabling
objectives, documentation,
timelines, responsible staff
and status of activities
1n8
11/86
Striefel 7/1/84 7/31/84 C7/25/84
Killoran
Quintero
Striefel
Killoran
7/1/84 10/1/
each
year
C9/4/84
Quintero 17/1/84 10/1/84 C9/11/84
7/1/84 7/15/
each
year
C7/13/84
7/15/84 9/24/
eaci:
C7/25/84
year
1/1/84 10/1/
each
year
C9/3/84
Quintero 7/8/64 6/30/87 C6/87
Striefel
7/17/84 6/30/87 C6/87
7/17/84 6/30/87 C6/87
77
F.A.S. Project Tracking System And Person Loading Chart
July 1, 1984 through June 30, 1987
10/85 B = Behind Schedule
C = Completed by Date IndicatedD lc Activity Discontinued
I = Activity Initiated
0 = Ongoing
M = Modified: Activity/Wording/Date
Objectives & Activities Documentation
for Monitoring
0.1.2.3 Compile materials and
procedures into project
handbook; review
annually
0.1.2.4 Establish financial
records for project
through DCHP Business
Office & Project
Coordinator
0.1.2.5 Develop and establish
time log system for
use by staff
0.2.0 Orient new staff
0.2.0.1 Conduct staff
training procedures
0.2.0.2 Review staff training
with employed staff
and revise as necessary
0.2.0.3 Compile and incorporate
staff training procedures
and materials into the
project handbook
0.2.1 Initiate staff inservice
training
0.2.0 Written guidelines for
project staff orientation;
written evaluation report of
orientation procedures
0.2.1 Written results of
staff needs assessment and
participation in inservice
activities
107
Respon. Initia. Comple. Status
Party Date Date
Quintero
Strie721
9/4/84
718184
7/8/84
7/1/84
7/1/84
10/1/84
10/8/84
Quintero 110/1/84
6/30/87 C8/86
7/31/84 C7/25/84
9/15/84 C9/18/84
10/15/ C11/16/84
each
year
10/1/ C8/31/84
each
year
10/8/ C10/5/84
each
year
10/22/ C11/16/84
each
year
5/7/ C6/87
each
year
78
F.M.S. Project Tracking System And Person loading Chart
July 1, 1984 through June 30, 1987
10/85 B = Behind Schedule
C = Completed by Date Indicated
D = Activity Discontinued
I = Activity Initiated
0 = Ongoing
M = Modified: Activity/Wording/Date
Objectives & Activities Documentation
for Monitoring
0.2.1.1 Identify or review
staff inservice needs
once every six months
Retreat
Computer Training
0.2.1.2 Present inservices as
needed, addressing
an identified need area
Battelle Training
MAC Computer Training
Slosson/Alpern Boll Trng.
0.2.1.3 Document inser-
vices & include descrip-
tions in tracking system
0.2.2 Establish advisory board, 0.2.2 Letters of commitment,
and meetings for year written schedules & agendas
0.2.2.1 List potential members
0.2.2.2 Draft letter for
members
0.2.2.3 Send letters and
follow-up with calls to
finalize plans for
meetings
0.2.2.4 Meet quarterly
0.2.3 Initiate and continue
dissemination activities
by notifying cooperating
agencies of initiation
through newsletters,
0.2.3 Written narratives of
project, news articles, and
letters; copies of FMS
Update
1 ns
Respon. Initia. Comple. Status
Party Date Date
10/1/84 4/30/87
C8/86
C11/86
10/8/84 5/7/
each
year
C8/86
C12/86
C7/86
10/8/84 5/7/
each
year
C6/87
Striefel 8/1/84 6/30/87 C11/14/84
Killoran
8/1/84 8/28/
each
year
C10/9/84
8/1/84 8/28/
each
year
C10/9/84
9/4/84 9/18/
each
year
C11/14/84
10/9/84 6/30/87 C9/86
Quintero 8/1/84 6/30/87 C6/87
Allred
79
F.N.S. Project Tracking System And Person Loading Chart
July 1, 1984 through June 30, 1987
10/85 B = Behind Schedule
C = Completed by' Date Indicated
D T Activity Discontinued
I = Activity Initiated
0 = Ongoing
M = Modified: Activity/Wording/Date
Objectives & Activit.es
newspaper articles, and
slide-sound presentation,
EMS Update sent out
monthly
0.2.3.1 Develop general
project abstract
0.2.3.1.1 Develop assorted
descriptions for
different audiences
0.2.3.2 Twice per month, review
Dissemination Log --
what sent, to whom, etc.,
and identify additional
contacts needed
0.2.3.2.1 Send project
descriptions to:
Exceptional News
Parent Newsletter
Utah Special Education
Consortium
Other agencies, through
Special Net
0.2.3.3 Develop slide-sound
show
0.2.3.4 Develop project
brochure
0.2.4 Plan development activities
with project consultants:
Tanya Suarez
Susan Fowler
0.2.4:1 Complete CPR with
TADS representative to
identify needs
Documentation Respon. Initia. Comple. Status
for Monitoring Party Date Date
C6/87
8/15/84 9/28/84 C7/27/84
8/15/84 6/30/87 C6/87
9/4/84 6/30/87 C6/87
8/15/84 9/28/84 C9/24/84
1/5/85 4/15/85 C12/10/85
1/5/85 4/15/85 C3/13/85
0.2.4 Draft of consultant's Striefel 9/1/84 2/15/85
report following visit
C2/20
C2/24
10/27/84 11/27/84 C11/27/84
109
80
F.M.S. Project Tracking System And Person Loading Chart
July 1, 1984 through June 30, 1987
10/85 B = Behind Schedule
C = Completed by Date Indicated
D = Activity Discontinued
I = Activity Initiated
0 = Ongoing
M = Modified: Activity/Wording/Date
Objectives & Activities Documentation
for Monitoring
0.2.4.2 List needs to be
fulfilled by consultant
0.2.4.3 Arrange for consultant
to visit project
0.2.5 Initiate development of 0.2.5 Draft of evaluation
evaluation plan plan
0.2.5.1 Complete tracking
system
0.2.5.2 Develop preliminary
plan
0.2.5.3 Arrange for outside
consultant review
and help
0.2.5.4 Finalize evaluation
plan
0.2.6 Contact other federally
funded mainstream projects
and procure appropriate
materials
0.2.6.1 Obtain from TADS
latest Overview and
Directory
0.2.6.2 Weekly review of
requests for information
sent and materials or
information received
0.2.7 Conduct project activities
0.2.6 Copies of project
materials; letters of
request and responses to
requests
0.2.7 Printout of management
system with monthly updates
on status of all activities
110
Respon. Initia. Comple. Status
Party Date Date
10/27/84 12/27/84
10/85 12/85 C12/85
11/20/84 2/15/85
11/85 2/86 C12/85
Striefel 9/1/84 6/30/85 C6/86
9/1/84 12/17/84 C10/84
12/17/84 2/15/85 C7/10/85
1/5/85 3/15/85 C9/20/85
3/15/85 6/30/86 C6/86
Quintero 9/15/84 6/30/87 C5/87
Striefel
Allred
9/15/84 10/15/ C9/13/84
each C11/85
year
9/15/84 6/30/87 C6/87
Quintero 7/1/84 6/30/87 C6/30/87
Striefel
Killoran
81
F.A.S. Project Tracking System And Person Loading Chart
July 1, 1984 through.Juae 30, 1987
10/85 B Behind Schedule
C Completed by Date Indicated
0 = Activity Discontinued
I = Activity Initiated
0 = Ongoing
M = Modified: Activity/Wording/Date
Objectives & Activities Oocumentation Respon. Initia. Comple. Status
for Monitoring Party Date Oate
0.2.8 Prepare continuation
proposal and year end
report
0.2.8 Copies of proposal
and report
Striefel
Killoran
Quintero
Objectives & Activities for Goal One: Transition Decision-Making
1.1 To develop or locate appro-
priate methods for assessing
each handicapped child's:
(a) social, (b) preacademic
and academic, (c) language,
(d) self-help, and (e) cogni-
tive skill level
Year One'
1.1.1 Review recent literature
to identify state-of-the-
art instruments used in
comprehensive assessment
of young handicapped
children to assess main-
stream readiness
1.1.1.1 Conduct library search
for articles related
to objective
1.1.1.2 Obtain and review
identified instruments for
appropriateness to goal
1.1.2 Critique identified
instruments for technical
adequacy & appropriateness
for use with young handi-
capped children who are
to be mainstreamed
Note: Developed MESA-PK
1.1.1 Written review of
literature--publishable
quality
1.1.2 Written technical
paper--publishable quality
111
Quintero
Yanito
Striefel
Yanito
Quintero
Striefel
11/15/84
9/15/84
9/15/84
9/15/84
10/15/84
12/15/ C10/85
each C12/86
year
1/7/85 C8/84
9/30/84 C9/28/84
10/15/84 C10/16/84
1/7/85 C8/85
82
F.N.S. Project Tracking System And Person Loading Chart
July 1, 1984 through June 30, 1987
10/85 B = Behind Schedule
C = Completed by Date Indicated
D = Activity Discontinued
I = Activity Initiated
0 = Ongoing
M = Modified: Activity/Wording/Date
Objectives & Activities Documentation
for Monitoring
1.1.2.1 Write first draft
of literature review
1.1.2.2 Submit first draft
to project staff for
review
1.1.2.3 Review literature
review as indicated by
staff feedback
1.1.2.4 Repeat steps
1.1.2.2 and 1.1.2.3 as
needed to prepare draft
for publication
1.1.2.5 Submit working draft
for outside review
1.1.2.6 Revise as indicated
by outside reviewer
1.1.2.7 Produce final draft
of literature review
1.1.3 Develop prototype instru-
ments if existing devices
are inadequate for assess-
ing desired skills
1.1.4 Pair existing assessment
instruments with developed
prototypes into assess-
ment package
1.1.5 Operationalize evaluation
questions for validity
of assessment package
1.1.3 Draft of prototype
instruments
1.1.4 Draft of prototype
instruments
1.1.5 Written evaluation
questions
112
Respon. Initia.
Party Date
Comple. Status
Date
10/15/84 10/22/84 C8/27/84
10/23/84 11/6/84 C9/11/84
11/6/84 11/13/84 C9/18/84
11/13/84111/27/84 C9/20/85
12/4/84 12/18/84 D
12/19/84 12/21/84 D
1/2/85 1/7/85 M/D
Quintero 11/15/84 12/30/84 C2/85
Yanito
Yanito 12/1/84 1/5/85 C
Quintero
Striefel
Yanito 12/1/84 1/5/85 C2/85
Quintero
Striefel
83
F.N.S. Project Tracking System And Person Loading Chart
July 1, 1984.through June 30, 1987
10/85 B = Behind Schedule
C = Completed by Date Indicated
D = Activity Discontinued
I . Activity Initiated
0 = Ongoing
M = Modified: Activity/Wording/Date
Objectives & Activities Documentation
for Monitoring
1.1.6 Data Collection
1.1.6.1 Develop data/
assessment system
1.1.6.2 Obtain written permission
from participants
for study
1.1.6.3 Train staff to
collect data
1.1.7 Field test prototype
assessment package using
single-subject designs
1.1.8 Analyze results and revise
assessment package as
dictated
1.1.9 Develop guide for using
assessment package
Year Twol
1.1.6 Written permission
from involved participants
and data from training
1.1.7 Field test data
1.1.8 Graphic data summaries
revised copies of assessment
package
1.1.9 Copy of user's guide
1.1.10 Operationalize research 1.1.10 Written research
questions to be answered proposal and questions
in group experimental
studies and follow-up
1.1.11 Train data collectors,
,obtain written permission
from all participants in
study
1.1.11 Training data (relia-
bility :ores), written
permissions
113
Respon. Initia. Comple. Status
Party Date Date
Yanito 11/15/84 1/5/85 C5/85
Quintero C7/85
Striefel C5/86
C7/86
11/15/94 12/15/84 C8/85
11/15/84 12/15/84 C
12/1/84 1/5/85 C
Yanito 1/5/85 5/30/85 C4/2/85
Quintero
Yanito 5/30/85 7/30/85 C5/85
Quintero
Yanito 1/5/85 7/15/85 C8/85
Quintero
Striefel
Phelps 7/1/85 7/15/85 C7/85
Quintero
Striefel
Phelps 7/1/85 7/30/85 C4/87
Quintero (Repeat
Striefel quar-
terly)
84
F.M.S. Project Tracking System And Person Loading Chart
July 1, 1984 through June 30, 1987
10/85 B = Behind Schedule
C = Completed by Date Indicated
D = Activity Discontinued
I = Activity Initiated
0 = Ongoing
M = Modified: Activity/Wording/Date
Objectives & Activities Documentation
for Monitoring
1.1.12 Conduct experimental
test of prototype with
total population;
implement experimental
control group studies
1.1.13 Modify and revise
prototype as indicated
by field test data
1.1.14 Prepare revised draft of
assessment package
materials
1.1.15 Revise user's guide for
assessment package
procedures
1.1.16 Prepare group experi-
mental study results for
publication
1.1.17 Collect follow-up data
1.1.12 Experimental test
data
1.1.13 Final draft
1.1.14 High quality
materials for replication
and dissemination
1.1.15 Copy of user's guide
1.1.16 Written summary
available
1.1.17 Written follow-up
data
1.1.18 Identify LEA and pre- 1.1.18 Written commitments
schools for replication from agencies
1.1.19 Prepare procedures and 1.1.19 Individual procedures
materials for integration and materials fully revised
into total model package and ready to integrate in
package form
1.1.20 Synthesize all assess- 1.1.20 Final model package
ment materials and proce-
dures into an exportable
form which facilitates
replication
114
Respon. Initia. Comple. Status
Party Date Date
Phelps 8/15/85 12/15/85 C9/85
Quintero C5/86
Striefel
Phelps 12/1/85 1/5/86 C10/85
Quintero
Striefel
Phelps 12/15/85 1/30/86 C10/85
Quintero
Striefel
Phelps 1/5/86 2/28/86 C10/85
Quintero
Striefel
Phelps 12/15/85 2/15/86 M
Quintero
Striefel
Phelps 12/15/85 3/1/87 C5/87
Quintero
Striefel
Phelps 4/1/86 7/15/86 C8/R6
Quintero
Striefel
Phelps 6/1/86 7/15/86 C6/86
Quintero
Striefel
Phelps 7/15/86 8/8/86 C8/86
Quintero
Striefel
85
F.M.S. Project Tracking System And Person Loading Chart
July 1, 1984 through June 30, 1987
10/85 B = Behind Schedule
C = Completed by Date Indicated
D = Activity Discontinued
I = Activity Initiated
0 = Ongoing
M = Modified: Activity/Wording/Date
Objectives & Activities Documentation Respon. Initia. Comple. Status
for Monitoring Party ;ate Date
Year Three'
Objectives 1.1, 1.2 & 1.3 are combined into a total product and are addressed
simultaneously with the following enabling objectives.
1.1.21 Document all start-up
and maintenance costs
1.1.22 Disseminate project at
local, state, and national
levels (see Activity Log)
1.1.23 Prepare agencies for
field test of the project
package
1.1.23.1 Contact district
personnel, principals
and/or program directors
1.1.23.2 Establish timelines
for replication
activities
1.1.24 Distribute materials to
dissemination sites:
Wilson, Sunrise,
Adams, Milville,
E. Bowen, Hillcrest
1.1.25 Conduct field tests &
revise as indicated
1.1.25.1 Conduct any necessary
training (None requested)
1.1-.25.2 Conduct assessments of
MESA-PK with students
1.1.21 Written manuscripts
1.1.22 Formal presentations,
slide shows, brochures, etc.
1.1.23 Letter sent to
districts and teachers
involved in transition;
materials included
1.1.24 Project manual &
materials mailed or hand
delivered to agencies
1.1.25 Field test data
115
Thornburg 7/1/86
Quintero
Striefel
All staf
All staff
All staff
Thornburg
Quintero
Striefel
7/1/86
7/15/86
8/1/86
9/1/86
5/1/87
6/30/87
8/8/86
9/1/86
3/15/87
C6/87
C6,87
C7/31/86
C7/31/86
C8/86
C8/86
0
C8/86
C7/86
86
FA.S. Project Tracking System And Person Loading Chart
July 1, 1984 through Juae 30, 1987
10/85 B = Behind-Schedule
C = Completed by Date Indicated
= Activity Discontinued
I = Activity Initiated
0 = Ongoing
H = Modified: Activity/Wording/Date
Objectives & Activities Documentation Respon. Initia. Comple.
for Monitoring Party Date Date
Status
1.1.25.3 Complete receiving
teacher(s) MESA-PK
1.1.25.4 Conduct model
activities related to
other project goals
1.1.25.5 Place child in
mainstream program
1.1.25.6 Conduct observations
follow up assessment
1.1.25.7 Collect consumer
information satisfaction
1.1.26 Analyze data and prepare
study for publication
1.2 To develop or locate appropri -I
ate methods for determining
teacher expectations of handi -I
capped children in the areas
of: (a) social, (b) pre-
academic and academic,
(c) language, (d) self-help,
(e) cognition skills
Year Onel
1.2.1 Review recent research to
identify need for matching
child to teacher
expectations
1.2.1.1 Conduct library
search for articles
related to objective
1.1.26 Written manuscript &
submitted for publication
Thornbrg
Quintero
Striefel
3/15/87 4/15/87
C7/8/86
C6/87
C9/86
C4/87
C6/30/87
1.2.1 Review of literature Yanito 7/27/84 8/3/84 C8/3/84
Quintero
Striefel
7/27/84 8/3/84 C8/3/84
116
87
88
F.A.S. Project Tracking System Aid Person Loading Chart
Ally 1, 1984 through June 30, 1987
10/85 B = Behind Schedule
C = Completed by Date Indicated
D = Activity Discontinued
I = Activity Initiated
0 = Ongoing
M = Modified: Activity/Wording/Date
Objectives : Pctivities Documentation Respon. Initia. Comple. Status
for Monitoring Party Date date
1.2.1.2 Obtain aterials
on matching from other
agencies
7/27184 18/3/84 1C8/3/84
1.2.2 Identify existing instru-
ments available for
identifying teacher
expectations in target
skill areas t.c.
1.2.2 Quality review of
literature
Yanito
Quintero
7/27/84 18/15/84 1C8/14/84
1.2.2.1 Review identified
articles for appro-
priateness to goal
7/27/84 8/10/84 C8/10/84
1.2.2.2 Abstract identified
articles and organize
into working library
7/27/84 8/14/84 C8/14/84
1.2.3 Critique identified
instruments for technical
adequacy & appropriateness
for use with young handi-
capped students
1.2.3 Quality technical
paper
Quintero
Yanito
8/15/84 12/15/84 C7/86
Continue to review
instruments as new ones
are identified
C7/86
1.2.3.1 Write first draft
of literature review
8/14/84 8/27/84 C8/27/84
(Same review as 1.1
1.2.3.2 Submit first draft
to project staff for
review
8/28/84 9/11/84 C9/11/84
1.2.3.3 Revise literature
review as indicated by
staff feedback
9/11/84 9/28/84 C9/18/84
117
F.M.S. Project Tracking System And Person Loading Chart
July 1, 1984 through June 30, 1987
10/85 B = Behind Schedule
C = Completed by Date Indicated
D = Activity Discontinuel
I = Activity Initiated
0 = Ongoing
M = Modified: Activity/Wording/Date
Objectives & Activities Documentation
for Monitoring
1.2.4 Develop prototype instru-
ments for determining
teacher expectations in
skill areas where none
exist
1.2.5 Pair existing instruments
with prototypes into a
comprehensive instrument
for determining teacher
expectations
1.2.6 Operationalize evaluation
questions for validating
"expectations" package
1.2.7 Data collection
1.2.7.1 Develop data/
assessment system
1.2.7.2 Obtain written
permission from partici-
pants for study
1.2.7.3 Train staff to
collect data
1.2.8 Field test prototype
package using single-
subject designs
1.2.9 Analyze results, revise
package as indicated
1.2.4 Drafts of prototype
1.2.5 Draft of prototype
package for determining
teacher expectations
1.2.6 Written evaluation
questions
1.2.7 Written permission
from participants
1.2.8 Field test data
1.2.9 Graphic data sum-
maries, revised copies of
expectations package
118
Respon. Initia.
Party Date
Comple. Status
Date
Quintero 11/15/84 12/15/84 C12/21/84
Yanito
Striefel
Quintero 11/26/8411/5/85 C2/1/85
Yanito
Quintero 11/26/8411/7/85 C2/1/85
Yanito
Striefel
Yanito 11/15/84 1i5/85 C5/86
Quintero (Repeat
Striefel quar-
terly)
11/15/84112/15/84 C3/31/85
11/15/84 12/15/84 C3/87
(Repeat
quar-
terly)
12/1/84 11/5/85 C2/3/85
1/15/85 15/30/85 C1/18/85
C2/18/85
C4/2/85
5/30/85 17/30/85 C9/85
89
F.M.S. Project Tracking System And Person Loading Chart
Jely 1, 1984 through June 30, 1987
10/85 B = Behind Schedule
C = Completed by Date Indicated
0 = Activity Discontinued
I = Activity Initiated
0 a Ongoing
= Modified: Activity /Wording /Gate
90
Objectives & Activities Documentation Respon. Initia. Comple. Status
for :lonitoring Party Date Date
Year Two'
1.2.10 Operationalize research 1.2.10 Written research
questions to be answered proposals and questions
in experimental follow-up
studies
Quintero
Phelps
Striefel
7/1/85
1.2.11 Train teachers to complete 1.2.11 Copies of data systemlQuintero 17/1/85
MESA-PK, obtain per- and permission forms Striefel
missions Phelps
1.2.12 Conduct field test of
prototype with total
population, implement
experimental control
group studies
1.2.13 Modify and revise proto-
type as indicated by
field test. data
1.2.14 Prepare final draft of
expectations materials
1.2.15 Revise user's'guide for
expectations assessment
procedures
1.2.16 Cnllect follow-up data
1.2.17 Identify LEA and pre-
1.1.12 Field test data
1.2.13 Final draft
1.2.14 High quality
materials for replication
and dissemination
1.2.15 Copy of user's guide
1.2.18 Written follow-up
data
1.2.19 Written commitments
schools for replication from/to agencies
1.2.18 Prepare procedures and 1.2.20 Individual procedures
materials for integration and materials fully revised
into total model package and ready to integrate in
package form
1 1 9
Quintero
Striefel
phelps
Quintero
Striefel
Phelps
Quintero
Striefel
Phelps
Quintero
Striefel
Phelps
Quintero
Striefel
Phelps
Quintero
Striefel
Phelps
Quintero
Striefel
Phelps
8/15/85
12/1/85
1/30/86
2/15/86
12/15/85
4/1/86
6/1/86
7/15/85
7/30/85
12/15/85
1/30e86
2/15/86
3/1/86
6/1/86
7/15/86
7/15/86
C7/85
C9/85
C9/85 &
C5/86
C10/85
C10/85
C10/85
C7/86
C6/86
.--
F.M.S. Project Tracking System And Person Leading Chart
July 1, 1984 through shine 30, 1987
10185 B = Behind Schedule
C g Completed by Date Indicated
0 Activity Discontinued
I = Activity Initiated
0 Ongoing
M = Modified: Activity/Wording/Date
Objectives & Activities Documentation Respon.
for Monitoring Party
Initia. Comple. Status
Date Date
1.2.19 Synthesize all expectations11.2.21 Final model package
materials & procedures into'
an exportable form which
facilitates replication
1.3 To develop a method for
selecting the 'best match'
between teacher's expectations
and children's skill levels
in: (a) social, (b) pre-
academic and academic, (c)
language communication, (d)
self-help, and (e) cognitive
skills when mainstreaming
children
Year Onel
1.3.1 Identify receiving teach- 1.3.1 Teacher expectations
ers skill expectations package protocols
Adams
1.3.1.1 Identify pool of
prospective teachers and
clear with administrators
Adams and Edith Bowen
1.3.1.2 Complete expectations
package protocols
1.3.2 Identify potential
student's skill levels
1.3.2.1 Identify pool of
potential students
1.3.2.2 Review files for
available pertinent test
1.3.2 Results of standard-
ized instruments and
assessment package
student profile
120
Quintero
Striefel
Phelps
7/15/86
12/1/84
8/8/86
1/15/85
C6/86
C8/86
(Revi-
sion)
Yanito 12/1/84 1/15/85 C10/85
Quintero
Striefel
12/1/84 12/7/84 C9/84
C9/85
12/7/84 1/15/85 C8/86
Quintero 10/15/84 1/5/85 C5/85
Yanito
Mott
10/15/84 10/29/84 C10/84
10/22/84 1/5/85 C4/85
91
92
F.N.S. Project Tracking System And Person Loading Chart
July 1, 1984 through June 30, 1987
10/85 B = Behind Schedule
C = Completed by Date Indicated
D = Activity Discontinued
I = Activity Initiated
0 = Ongoing
M = Modified: Activity/Wording/Date
Ob.,'2ctives & Activities Documentation Respon. Initia. Comple. Status
for Monitoring Party Date Date
1.3.2.3 Test, as needed 10/22/84 1/5/85
1.3.3 Develop prototype instruc-
ment which allows for the
1.3.3 Draft of matching
prototype
Qunitero
Yanito
10/15/84 1/15/85 C1/85
matching of expectations
to skill levels
1.3.4 Determine 'range" of
teacher expectations
1.3.4 "Matching' prototype
profiles
Quintero
Yanito
1/5/85 2/1/85 C4/2/85
Striefel
1.3.5 Determine teacher expecta-
tions which are critical
before child is placed
1.3.5 "Matching" prototype
profiles
Quintero
Yanito
Striefel
2/1/85 6/30/85 C4/2/85
1.3.6 Determine expectations
which are noncritical to
1.3.6 "Matching" prototype
profiles
Quintero
vanito
2/1/85 6/30/85 C4/2/85
'placement Str'efel-
1.3.7 Operationalize evaluation
questions for validating
1.3.7 Written questions Quintero
Yanito
3/1/85 4/1/85 C2/1/85
"matching" instruments Striefel
1.3.8 Develop data system; train 1.3.8 Copies of data system; Quintero 1/5/85 3/1/85 M-Obser-
observers; obtain needed permission forms; inservice Yanito vers not
permissions to DCHP teachers Striefel needed
C3/85
1.3.9 Field test prototype using
single-subject designs;
revise as indicated
1.3.9 Draft of prototype
instrument
Quintero
Yanito
Striefel
2/15/85 5/30/85 C7/85
1.3.10 Analyze results, revise
instruments as indicated
1.3.10 Graphic data sum-
maries; revised copy of
Quintero
Yanito
5/30/85 7/30/85 C9/85
"matching package" Striefel
1.3.11 Develop manual for imple-
menting matching package
1.3.11 Copy user's manual Quintero
Yanito
1/5/85 8/15/85 C9/85
Striefel
121
F.M.S. Project Tracking System And Person Loading Chart
July 1, 1984 through June 30, 1987
10/85 B . Behind Schedule
C = Completed by Date Indicated
D = Activity Discontinued
I = Activity Initiated
0 = Ongoing
M = Modified: Activity/Wording/Date
Objectives & Activities Documentation Respon. Initia. Comple. Status
for Monitoring Party Date Date
Year Twol
Note: Insufficient "n" for necessary tests
'.3.12 Operationalize research
questions to be answered
in group experimental
studies and follow-up
1.3.13 Train data collectors,
obtain written permission
from all participants in
study
1.3.14 Conduct field test of
matching prototype with
available population
Edith Bowen
Colby, Kansas (Note: Could
1.3.15 Modify and revise matching
prototype as indicated
by field test data
1.3.16 Prepare final draft of
matching package
1.3.17 Revise user's guide for
matching package
1.3.18 Identify LEA and pre-
schools for replication
1.3.19 Prepare procedures and
materials for integration
into total model package
1.3.12 Written research
proposals and questions
1.3.13 Training data (reli-
ability scores), written
permission
1.3.14 Field test data
of obtain data from site)
1.3.15 Final draft of peer
tutor prototype
1.3.16 High quality
materials for replication
and dissemination
1.3.17 Copy of user's guide
1.3.21 Written commitments
from/to agencies
1.3.22 Individual procedures
and materials fully revised
and ready to integrate in
package form
122
Qunitero 7/8/85 7/22/85 C8/85
Striefel
Phelps
Quintero 7/8/85 8/8/85 C7/85
Striefel
Phelps
Quintero 8/15/85 12/15/85 C3/86
Striefel
Phelps
Quintero 12/1/85 1/15/86 C4/86
Striefel
Phelps
Quintero 1/15/85 1/30/86 C10/85 &
Striefel C6/86
Phelps
Quintero 1/5/86 4/1/86 C10/85 &
Striefel C6/86
Phelps
Quintero 4/1/86 7/15/86 C7/86
Striefel
Phelps
Quintero 6/1/86 7/30/86 C6/86
Striefel
Phelps
93
U.S. Project Tracking System And Person Loading Chart
July 1, 1984 through June 30, 1987
10/85 B = Behind Schedule
C = Completed by Date Indicated
0 = Activity Discontinued
I = Activity Initiated
0 = Ongoing
M = Modified: Activity/Wording/Date
Objectives & Activities Documentation
for Monitoring
1
Respon. Initia. Comple. Status 1
Party Date Date
1.3.20 Synthesize all matching
materials and procedures
into an exportable form
which facilitates
replication
1.3.23 Final model package Quintero
Striefel
Phelps
7/15/86 8/8/86
Objectives & Activities for Goal 2: Reverse MS and "In-Class" Transition Activities)
2.1 To develop and implement peer
tutoring system for assuring
that appropriate peer models
are available and that inter-
action between normal and
handicapped children occurs
Year Onel
2.1.1 Review literature pertain-
ing to peer tutoring
systems effective with
young handicapped students
2.1.1.1 Conduct libr try
search for articles
related to objective
2.1.1.2 Obtain and review
materials used by other
agencies/programs
2.1.2 Critique identified peer
tutoring systems for
effectiveness and appro-
priateness for use with
young handicapped students
2.1.2.1 Write first draft
of literature review
2.1.1 Quality literature
review/technical paper
2.1.1.1 Current review
located
2.1.2 Quality technical
paper
123
Mott
Quintero
Killoran
10/15/84
10/15/84
10/15/84
11/15/84
11/15/84
2/1/85
10/30/84
11/15/84
12/15/84
11/22/84
C6/86
C2/22/85
C11/22/84
D
C11/22
D
D
D
94
F.M.S. Project Tracking System And Person Loading Chart
Ally 1, 1984 through June 30, 1987
10/85 B = Behind Schedule
C = Completed by Date Indicated
D = Activity Discontinued
I = Activity Initiated
0 = Ongoing
M = Modified: Activity/Wording/Date
Objectives & Activities Documentation
for Monitoring
2.1.2.2 Submit first draft
to project staff for
review
2.1.2.3 Revise literature
review as indicated by
staff feedback
2.1.2.4 Repeat reviews and
revisions as needed
2.1.2.5 Produce final draft
2.1.3 Select system and adapt
as needed
2.1.4 Operationalize questions
1-6 be studied
2.1.5 Field test system in
integrated setting
2.1'.6 Analyze results and
incorporate results into
peer tutoring system
2.1.7 Develop final version of
peer tutoring system
2.1.8 Develop user's manual for
peer tutoring system
2.1.3 Draft of prototype
system
2.1.4 Written questions
2.1.5 Written results of
field testing (i.e., data
sheets, teacher reports,
graphic data summaries
2.1.6 Graphic narrative
summaries; draft of
prototype manual
2.1.7 Final draft of peer
tutoring system
2.1.8 Copy of user's manual
124
Respon. Initia. Comple. Status
Party Date Date
11/22/84 11/30/84 D
11/30/84 12/7/84 D
12/7/84 12/13/84 D
12/13/84 12/15/84 D
Mott 11/15/84 2/1/85 C7/85
Quintero
Killoran
Mott 12/15/84 1/15/85 C6/85
Quintero
Killoran
Mott 2/5/85 5/30/8: 17/85
Quintero
Killoran
Mott 5/30/85 7/30/85 C8/85
Quintero
Killoran
Mott 5/30/85 8/15/85 C6/86
Quintero
Killoran
Mott 2/5/85 8/30/85 C6/86
Quintero
95
F.K.S. Project Tracking System And Person Loading Chart
July 1, 1984 through June 30, 1987
10/85 B = Behind Schedule
C = Completed by Date Indicated
D = Activity Discontinued
I = Activity Initiated
0 = Ongoing
M = Modified: Activity/Wording/Date
Objectives & Activities Documentation
for Monitoring
Year Twol
2.1.9 Operationalize research
questions to be answered
in group experimental
studies and follow-up
2.1.10 Train peer tutors,
obtain written permission
from all participants
in study
2.1.11 Conduct field test of peer
tutor prototype with total
population, implement
experimental control group
studies
2.1.12 Modify and revise proto-
type as indicated by field
test data
2.1.13 Prepare final draft of
peer tutor package
2.1.14 Revise user's guide for
peer tutor package
2.1.15 Prepare single-subject
study results for
dissemination
2.1.9 Written research
proposals and questions
2.1.10 Training data (reli-
ability scores), written
permission
2.1.11 Field test deta
2.1.12 Final prototype of
peer tutor system
2.1.13 High quality
materials for replication
dissemination
2.1.14 Copy of user's guide
2.1.15 Abstract submitted
for presentation
125
Respon. Initia. Comple. Status
Party Date Date
Quintero 7/15/85 8/15/85 C7/85
Killoran
Phelps
Allred
Quintero
Killoran
7/8/85 Quar-
terly
C6/30/87
Phelps
Allred
(Repeat-
ed with
each new
tutor)
Quintero 8/30/85 4/1/86 C6/86
Killoran
Phelps
Allred
Quintero 4/1/86 6/1/86 C6/86
Killoran
Phelps
Allred
Quintero 6/1/86 7/1/86 C8/86
Killoran
Phelps
Allred
Quintero 3/15/86 7/15/86 C8/86
Killoran
Phelps
Allred
Quintero 6/15/86 8/15/86 C4/1/87
Killoran
Phelps
Allred
96
F.M.S. Project Tracking System And Person Loading Chart
July 1, 1984 through June 3D, 1987
10/85 B = Behind Schedule
C = Completed by Date Indicated
0 = Activity Discontinued
I = Activity Initiated
0 = Ongoing
M = Modified: Activity/Wording/Date
Objectives & Activities
97
Documentation Respon. Initia. Comple. Status
for Monitoring Party Date Date
2.1.16 Present results
2.1.17 Collect follow-up data
2.1.18 Identify LEA and pre-
schools for replication
- DCHP CHIPP Classes
- COL CHIPP Class
2.1.19 Prepare procedures and
materials for integration
into total model package
2.1.20 Synthesize all peer tutor
materials and procedures
into an exportable form
which facilitates
replication
2.1.16 Presented at Utah
Psychological Association
2.1.17 Written follow-up
data
2.1.18 Written commitments
from/to agencies
2.1.19 Individual procedures
and materials fully revised
and ready to integrate in
package form
2.1.20 Final instructional
package
Year Three'
Tutors were not feasible in a Reverse Mainstreaming preschool
(2.2)
Quintero
Killoran
Phelps
Allred
Quintero
Phelps
Allred
Quintero
Killoran
Phelps
Allred
Quintero
Killoran
Phelps
Allred
Quintero
Killoran
Phelps
Allred
6/15/86
4/1/86
4/1/86
6/1/86
6/1/86
8/15/86
6/1/86
7/15/86
8/1/86
8/1/86
class. Efforts redirected
2.1.21 Document all start-up and 2.1.21 Written manuscripts Allred
maintenance costs
2.1.21.1 Summarize monthly, time
spent by FMS staff and
field site personnel
instituting peer tutoring
2.1.21.2 Summarize monthly, costs
of conducting peer
tutoring
126
7/1/86 5/1/87
C5/16/87
C4/87
C6/86
C8/86
C10/86
oward buddies
P.N.S. Project Tracking System And Person Loading Chart
July 1, 1984 through June 30, 1987
10/85 B = Behind Schedule
C = Completed by Date Indicated
D = Activity Discontinued
I = Activity Initiated
0 = Ongoing
M = Modified: Activity/Wording/Date
Objectives & Activities Documentation
for M(Tlitoring
Respon. Initia. Comple. Status
Party Date Da':
2.1.21.3 Complete cost analysis
on monthly basis
2.1.22 Disseminate project at
local, state and national
levels
2.1.23 Prepare agencies for
field test of the project
package
- DCHP
2.1.24 Distribute materials to
dissemination sites
2.1.25 Conduct field test and
revise as necessary
2.1.26 Analyze data and prepare
study for publication
2.2 To develop and implement a
teaching group system that
assures that normal and handi-
capped children are taught
academic and related skills
within the same small groups
Year Onel
2.2.1 Conduct analysis of teach-
ing groups commonly used
in cooperating schools
Repeated
2.2.1.1 List cooperating
schools
2.1.22 Formal presentations
2.1.23 Manuals and materials
agency workshop records
All staff
All staff
2.1.24 Project manuals and All staff
materials mailed or hand
delivered to agencies
2.1.25 Field test data Quintero
Killoran
Allred
2.1.26 Written manuscript & Quintero
submitted for publication Killoran
Allred
2.2.1 Copies of written
analysis
127
Mott
Quintero
7/1/86
7/15/86
8/1/86
8/1/86
3/15/87
11/1/84
11/1/84
6/30/87
8/8/86
9/1/86
3/15/87
4/30/87
1/5/85
11/15/84
D
C11/86
C11/86
D
C
C9-12/85
C
98
P.N.S. Project Tracking System And Person Loading Chart
July 1, 1984 through June 30, 1987
10/85 B = Behind Schedule
C = Completed by Date Indicated
D = Activity Discontinued
I = Activity Initiated
0 = Ongoing
M = Modified: Activity/Wording/Date
Objectives & Activities
2.2.1.2 Interview teachers
from those schools
2.2.1.3 Write analysis of
systems used
2.2.2 Operationalize evaluation
questions
2.2.2.1 Develop data collection
for group systems
Revised/Repeated
2.2.2.2 Train staff to use system
Repeated
2.2.3 Measure rates of teacher-
student interactions within
groups (e.g., prompts,
cues, praise, correction
procedures) using existing
validated systems
Repeated
2.2.4 Train teachers in use of
graduated prompting and
praising procedures for
use with normal and handi-
capped children (lecture,
demonstration, hand
shaping, and in-class
follow-up)
Repeated
2.2.5 Remeasure teacher-child
interaction rates (in-
creased rates indicate
successful teaching)
Repeated
Documentation Respon. Initia. Comple. Status
for Monitoring Party Date Date
11/15/84 11/28/84 C
11/28/84 1/5/85 C6/85
2.2.2 Written questions Mott 11/15/84 1/15/85 C6/85
Quintero
Killoran
11/28/84 12/15/84 C10/84
C12/85
12/15/84 1/15/85 C10/84
C12/85
2.2.3 Copies of data sheets/ Mott 3/1/85 5/30/85 C12/84
observation forms of
teacher/student interactions
Quintero
Killoran
C7/85
C9-12/85
2.2.4 Training schedules
and outlines; video-taped
microteachings
Mott
Quintero
Killoran
3/7/85 5/1/85 C10/84
C5/87
2.2.5 Copies of data sheets/ Mott 5/1/85 6/15/85 C12/84
observation forms of
teacher/student interactions
Quintero
Killoran
C7/85
C5/87
128
99
F.M.S. Project Tracking System And Person Load14 Chart
July 1, 1984 through June 30, 1987
10/85 B = Behind Schedule
C = Completed by Date Indicated
D . Activity Discontinued
I = Activity Initiated
0 = Ongoing
M = Modified: Activity/Wording/Date
Objectives & Activities Documentation
for Monitoring
2.2.6'Conduct follow-up train-
ing as indicated
2.2.7 Measure rates of inter-
action at predetermined
dates to ensure maintenance
of newly acquired teaching
skills
2.2.8 Analyze data and revise
procedures as indicated
2.2.9 Develop user's manual and
embed in project manual
Year Twol
2.2.10 Operationalize research
questions to be answered
by experimental studies
2.2.11 Train observers, obtain
permissions
2:2.12 Conduct field test of
teaching group prototype
with total population,
implement experimental
control group studies
2.2.13 Modify and revise teaching
group prototype as indi-
cated by field test data
2.2.14 Prepare final draft of
teaching group package
2.2.6 Written logs of
follow-up training
2.2.7 Copies of data sheets/
observation forms of
teacher/student interactions
2.2.8 Graphic and narrative
summaries; revised draft of
procedures
2.2.9 Draft of manual
2.2.10 Written research
proposal and questions
2.2.11 Training data,
written permissions
2.2.12 Field test data
2.2.13 Final draft
2.2.14 High quality
materials for replication
and dissemination
129
Respon. Initia. Comple. Status
Party Date Date
Mott 5/8/85 6/15/85 C8/85
Quintero
Killoran
Mott 3/1/85 6/30/85 C8/85
Quintero
Killoran
Mott 7/1/85 9/1/85 C9/85
Quintero
Killoran
Mott 3/1/85 9/1/85 C10/86
Quintero
Killoran
Quintero 9/1/85 9/15/85 C9/85
Killoran
Phelps
Quintero 9/1/85 9/30/85 C9/85
Killoran
Phelps
Quintero 9/30/85 5/1/86 C6/86
Killoran
Phelps
Quintero 10/30/85 6/1/86 C11/86
Killoran
Phelps
Quintero 6/1/86 8/1/86 C 1/86
Killoran
Phelps
100
F.M.S. Project Tracking System And Person Loading Chart
Ally 1, 1984 through June 30, 1987
10/85 B = Behind Schedule
C = Completed by Date Indicated
D = Activity Discontinued
I = Activity Initiated
0 = Ongoing
M = Modified: Activity/Wording/Date
Objectives & Activities Documentation
for Monitoring
2.2.15 Revise user's guide for
teaching group packages
2.2.16 Identify LEA and pre-
schools for replication
2.2.17 Prepare procedures and
materials for integration
into total model package
2.2.15 Copy of user's guide
2.2.19 Written commitments
from/to agencies
2.2.20 Individual procedures
and materials full revised
and ready to integrate in
package form
2.2.18 Synthesize all teaching 2.2.21 Final instructional
group materials and pro- package
cedures into an exportable
form which facilitates
replication
Year_Three:,
2.2.19 Document all start-up
and maintenance costs
2.2.20 Contact district
personnel, principals
and/or program directors
DCHP Class
2.2.20.1 Obtain permissions
necessary
2.2.20.2 Establish timelines for
replication activities
2.2.20.3 Gather student baseline
assessment data
2.2.22 Written manuscripts
130
Respon. Initia. Comple. Status
Party Date Date
Quintero 5/1/86 7/22/86 C11186
Killoran
Phelps
Quintero 4/1/86 7/15/86 C12/86
Killoran
Phelps
Quintero 6/1/86 8/1/86 C11/86
Killoran
Phelps
Quintero 7/15/86 8/8/86 C11/86
Killoran
Phelps
Quintero 7/1/86 5/1/87 C6/30/87
Killoran
Allred
C8/86
C8-9/86
C8/86
C9/86
101
P.N.S. Project Tracking System And Person Loading Chart
July 1, 1984 through June 30, 1987
10/85 B = Behind Schedule
C = Completed by Date Indicated
D = Activity Discontinued
I = Activity Initiated
0 = Ongoing
M = Modified: Activity/Wording/Date
Objectives & Activities
2.2.21 Distribute materials
to dissemination sites
2.2.21.1 Conduce training of
teachers
2.2.21.2 Collect baseline data
as needed
2.2.21.3 Conduct related model
activities in other goal
areas
2.2.21.4 Start grouping
2.2.21.5 Observe and collect
follow-up data
2.2.21.6 Collect consumer
satisfaction data
2.2.22 Conduct field test and
revise as necessary
2.2.23 Analyze data and prepare
study for dissemination
2.3 To develop and implement
buddy system to assure that
each handicapped child has a
"big brother," "big sister"
to help foster learning
Documentation Respon. Initia. Comple. Statusfor Monitoring Party Date Date
2.2.25 Project manuals and
materials mailed or hand
delivered to agencies
All staff 8/1/86 9/1/86 C9/86
C8-9/86
C10/86
C8/87
C8/86
C5/87
C6/87
2.2.26 Field test data Quintero 9/1/86 3/15/87 C5/87
Killoran
Allred
2.2.27 Written manuscript
prepared
Quintero
Killoran
3/15/87 4/30/87 C6/30/87
Allred
13.1
102
F.M.S. Project Tracking System And Person Loading Chart
July 1, 1984 through June 30, 1987
10/85 B = Behind Schedule
C = Completed by Date Indicated
D = Activity Discontinued
I = Activity Initiated
0 = Ongoing
M = Modified: Activity/Wording/Date
Objectives 5 Activities Documentation
for Monitoring
Year Onel
2.3.1 Identify 'buddy systems'
which have previously been
found effective in main-
stream settings serving
young handicapped students
2.3.1.1 Conduct library
search for articles
related to objective
2.3.1.2 Review identified
articles for appro-
priateness to goal
2.3.1.3 Abstract identified
articles and organize
into working library
2.3.1.4 Identify system(s)
which most clearly fit
objectives
2.3.2 Select system and adapt
as needed
2.3.3 Operationalize evaluation
questions
2.3.4 Field test system And
revise as needed
2.3.5 Analyze data incorporating
revisions into system as
indicated
2.3.1 Literature review
2.3.2 Prototype draft of
buddy system
2.3.3 Written questions
2.3.4 Written field test
schedule, anecdotal notes,
data sheets
2.3.5 Graphic and narrative
data summaries
132
Respon. Initia. Comple. Status
Party Date Date
Quintero 10/15/84 12/1/84 C6/85
Mott
Killoran
10/15/84 10/22/84 C11/1/85
10/22/84 10/29/84 C1/9/85
10/29/84 11/20/84 C1/9/85
11/26/84 12/1/84 C6/85
Mott 12/1/84 1/15/85 C7/85
Quintero
Killoran
Mott 12/1/84 1/15/85 C7/85
Quintero
Killoran
Mott 2/15/85 6/30/85 C7/85
Quintero
Killoran
Mott 6/30/85 9/1/85 C8/85
Quintero
Killoran
103
F.M.S. Project Tracking System And Perm Loading Chart
Jelly 1, 1984 throvgh Jens 30, 1987
10/85 B Behind Schedule
C = Completed by Date Indicated0 = Activity Discontinued
I = Activity Initiated
0 = Ongoing
M Modified: Activity/Wording/Date
Objectives & Activities Documentation
for Monitoring
2.3.6 Draft manual of 'buddy
systems
Year Two(
2.3.7 Operationalize research
questions to be answered
in group experimental
studies and follow-up
2.3.8 Train data collectors,
obtain written permission
from all participants in
study
2.3.9 Conduct field test of
buddy system with total
population, implement
experimental control
group studies
2.3.10 Modify and revise buddy
system as indicated by
field test data
2.3.11 Prepare final draft of
buddy system package
2.3.12 Revise user's guide for
buddy system
2.3.13 Collect longitudinal
follow-up data
2.3.14 Identify LEA and pre-
schools for replication
2.3.6 Final draft of sntem
2.3.7 Written research
proposal and questions
2.3.8 Training data (reli-
ability scores), written
permissions
2.3.9 Field test data
2.3.10 Revised buddy system
2.3.11 High quality
materials for replication
and dissemination
2.3.12 Copy of user's guide
2.3.15 Written follow-up
data
2.3.16 Written commitments
from/to agencies
133
Respon. Initia. Comple. Status
Party Date Date
Mott 2/15/85 9/1/85 C9/85
Quintero
Killoran
Quintero 7/15/85 8/15/85 C8/85
Killoran
Phelps
Quintero 8/1/85 8/30/85 C9/85
Killoran
Phelps
Quintero 8/30/85 4/1/86 C8/86
Killoran
Phelps
Quintero 4/1/86 6/1/86 C8/86
Killoran
P elps
Quintero 6/1/86 7/1/86 C8/86
Killoran
Phelps
Quintero 3/15/86 7/15/86 C9/86
Killoran
Phelps
Quintero 4/1/86 6/1/86 C6/87
Killoran
Phelps
Quintero 4/1/86 7/15/86 C6/86
Killoran
Phelps
104
F.M.S. Project !racking System And Person loading Chart
July 1, 1984 through June 30, 1987
10/85 B Behind Schedule
C Completed by Date Indicated
D Activity Discontinued
I Activity Initiated
0 Ongoing
M Modified: Activity/Wording/Date
Objectives I Activities Documentation
for Monitoring
2.3.15 Revise procedures and
materials for integration
into demonstration
model package
2.3.16 Synthesize buddy system
materials and procedures
into an exportable form
which facilitates
replication
Year Three!
2.3.17 Document all start-up
and maintenance costs
2.3.18 Disseminate project at
local, state, and national
levels
Utah Psychological Assoc.
2.3.19 Prepare agencies for
field test of the project
package and distribute
materials to each
dissemination site
2.3.20.1 Contact district person-
nel, principals and/or
program directors
- DCHP Classes
2.3.20.2 Obtain permissions
necessary
2.3.20.3. Establish timelines for
replication activities
2.3.20.4 Gather student baseline
assessment data
2.3.17 Individual procedures
and materials fully revised
and ready to integrate in
package form
2.3.18 Final instructional
package
2.3.19 Written manuscripts
2.3.20 Formal presentations
slide shows, brochures, etc.
2.3.21 Manuals anu materials
agency workshop records
13 4
Respon, Initia. Comple. Status
Part Date Date
Quintero 6/1/86 8/1/86 C8/86
Killoran
Phelps
Quintero 1/1/86 8/1/86 C8/86
Killoran
Phelps
Quintero 7/1/86 5/1/87 C7/30/87
Killoran
Allred
All staff 7/1/86 6/30/87 C6/87
C4/87
All staff 7/15/86 8/8/86 C7/86
C9/86
C8-9A6
CR'86
C9/86
105
F.M.S. Project Tracking System And Person Loading Chart
July 1, 1984 through June 30, 1987
10/85 8 Behind Schedule
C Completed by Date IndicatedD Activity Discontinued
I = Activity Initiated
0 Ongoing
M Modified: Activity/Wording/Date
Objectives & Activities Documentation Respon. Initia. Comple. Status
for Monitoring Party Date Date
2.3.21 Conduct field test and
revise as necessary
2.3.21.1 Conduct teacher
training
2.3.21.2 Collect baseline
data as needed
2.3.21.3 Conduct related activ-
ities in other areas
2.3.21.4 Start buddy system
2.3.21.5 Conduct observation
and follow-up
2.3.21.6 Collect consumer
satisfaction data
2.3.22 Analyze data and prepare
study for publication
2.4 To develop and implement a
system to assure that normally
occurring teaching opportuni-
ties maximize handicapped and
normal student interaction
Year Onel
2.4.1 Analyze class schedule,
identifying skills which
naturally occur during
daily activities
Repeated
2.3.22 Field test data
2.3.23 Field test data
2.4.1 Outline of daily
schedule
135
Quintero
Killoran
Allred
Quintero
Killoran
Allred
Quintero
Mott
Ahoraiyan
9/1/86 3/15/87
3/15/87
11/1/84
4/30/87
1/5/85
C5/87
C8-9/86
C11/86
C1/87
C6/30/87
C1/87
C6/30/87
C6/30/87
C6/87
C9/84
2/85
C9/85
106
F.M.S. Project Tracking System And Person Loading Chart
July 1, 1984 through June 30, 1987
10/85 B = Behind Schedule
C = Completed by Date Indicated
D = Activity Discontinued
I = Activity Initiated
0 = Ongoing
M = Modified: Activity/Wording/Date
Objectives & Activities Documentation
for Monitoring
2.4.1.1 Observe classrooms
for naturally
occurring opportunities
to teach skills
Repeated
2.4.1.2 List and organize
opportunities observed;
outline daily schedules
Repeated
2.4.1.3 Identify child skills
needed to meet daily
activities
Repeated
2.4.2 Match child's skill defi-
cits to daily activities
in which use of those
skills naturally occur
2.4.3 Operationalize questions
2.4.4 Develop and field test pro-
cedures to train teachers
to match natural oppor-
tunities to child's skill
deficits
2.4.2 Written matching of
skill deficits to times of
day in which they naturally
occur
2.4.3 Written questions
2.4.4 Written procedural
guide; pre-post direct
observation forms
2.4.5 Develop and field test pro- 2.4.5 Written procedural
cedures to train teachers guide; pre-post tests
in the use of graduated
prompting and praising
techniques
136
Respon. Initia. Comple. Status
Party Date Date
11/12/84 11/29/84 C9/84
2/85
C9-10/85
11/29/84 12/15/84 C9/84
2/85
C10-11/85
12/15/84 1/5/85 C9/84
2/85
Cl0-11/85
Quintero 1/15/85 2/15/85 C9/84
Mott
Ahoraiyan
Killoran
Quintero 1/15/85 2/15/85 C9/84
Mott
Ahoraiyan
Killoran
Quintero 2/15/85 4/1/85 C9/84
Mott
Ahoraiyan
Killoran
Quintero 3/1/85 4/1/85 C9/84
Mott 7/85
Ahoraiyan
Killoran
107
F.M.S. Project Tracking System And Person Loading Chart
July 1, 1984 through June 3D, 1987
10/85 B . Behind Schedule
C = Completed by Date Indicated
= Activity Discontinued
I = Activity Initiated
0 = Ongoing
M = Modified: Activity/Wording/Date
Objectives & Activities Documentation
for Monitoring
2.4.6 Develop user's manual
Year Twol
2.4.7 Operationalize research
questions to be answered
in group experimental
studies and follow-up
2.4.8 Train data collectors,
obtain written permission
from all participants in
study
2.4.9 Conduct field test -f
incidental teaching pro-
cedures with total popula-
tion, implement control
group studies
2.4.10 Modify and revise proce-
dures as indicated by
field test data
2.4.11 Prepare final draft of
incidental teaching
procedures
2.4.12 Revise user's guide for
incidental teaching
procedures
2.4.13 Prepare single-subject
study results for
publication
Research on prompt & praise
2.4.14 Prepare experimental study
2.4.6 Copy of user's manual
2.4.7 Written research pro-
posals and questions
2.4.8 Training data (reli-
ability scores), written
permissions
2.4.9 Field test data
2.4.10 Revised incidental
teaching procedures
2.4.11 High quality
materials for replication
and dissemination
2.4.12 Copy of user's guide
2.4.13 Manuscripts submitted
for publication
2.4.14 Manuscripts submitted
137
Respon. Initia. Comple. Status
Party Date Date
Quintero 6/1/85 8/1/85 C9/86
Mott
Ahoraiyan
Killoran
Phelps 7/1/85 9/1/85 C7/85
Cogar
Quintero
Killoran
Phelps 9/1/85 9/30/85 C9/85
Cogar
Quintero
Killoran
Phelps 9/30/85 5/1/86 C7/66
Cogar
Quintero
Killoran
Phelps 10/30/85 6/1/86 C11/86
Cogar
Quintero
Killoran
Phelps 6/1/86 8/1/86 C11/86
Cogar
Quintero
Killoran
Phelps 5/1/86 7/1/86 C11/86
Cogar
Phelps 7/1/86 3/1/87 C5/87
CowQuintero
Killoran
Phelps 8/1/86 3/1/87 0
108
F.M.S. Project Tracking System And Person Loading Chart
July 1, 1984 through June 30, 1987
10/85 B = Behind Schedule
C = Completed by Date Indicated
D = Activity Discontinued
I = Activity Initiated
0 = Ongoing
M = Modified: Activity/Wording/Date
Objectives & Activities Documentation
for Monitoring
2.4.14 Prepare experimental study
results for publication
2.4.15 Collect follow-up data
2.4.16 Identify LEAs and pre-
schools for replication
DCHP
2.4.17 Prepare procedures and
materials for integration
into demonstration model
package
2.4.18 Synthesize all incidental
teaching materials and
procedures into an
exportable form which
facilitates replication
Year Three'
2.4.19 Document all start-up
and maintenance costs
2.4.19.1 Summarize monthly, time
spent bif-FMS.and field
site staff on trihing-of
teaching techniques
2.4.19.2 Summarize monthly, costs
of training and
implementing teaching
techniques
2.4.14 Manuscripts submitted
for publication
2.4.15 Written follow-up
data
2.4.16 Written commitments
to/from agencies
2.4.17 Individual procedures
and materials fully revised
and ready to integrate in
package form
2.4.18 Final instructional
packtge
2.4.19 Written manuscripts
118
Respon. Initia. Comple. Status
Party Date Date
Phelps 8/1/86 3/1/87 0
Cogar
Quintero
Killoran
Phelps 9/1/86 3/1/87 0
Cogar
Quintero
Killoran
Phelps 4/1/86 7/15/86 C8/86
Cogar
Quintero
Killoran
Phelps 6/1/86 8/1/86 C11/86
Cogar
Quintero
Killoran
Phelps 7/15/86 8/1/86 C11/86
Cogar
Quintero
Killoran
Quintero 7/1/86 6/30/87 C6/87
C6/87
C6/87
109
F.A.S. Project Tracking System And Person Loading Chart
July 1, 1984 through Jane 30, 1987
10/85 B = Behind Schedule
C = Completed by Date Indicated
D = Activity Discontinued
I = Activity Initiated
0 = Ongoing
M = Modified: Activity/Wording/Date
Objectives & Activities Documentation Respon. Initia. Comple. Statusfor Monitoring Party Date Date
2.4.19.3 Complete monthly
cost analysis
2.4.20 Disseminate project at
local, state, and national
levels
2.4.21 Prepare agencies for Meld
test of the project
package
2.4.21.1 Contact district person-
nel, principals, and/or
program directors
i)CHP, Canyon View
2.4.21.2 Obtain permissions
necessary
2.4.21.3 Establish timelines for
replication activities
2.4.21.4 Gather student baseline
assessment data
2.4.22 Conduct field test and
revise as indicated
(Discontinued at Canyon
view due to teacher's
absence)
2.4.22.1 Conduct teacher
training
2:4:22:2-Collectbaseline
data as needed
2.4.22.3 Conduct related activ-
ities in other areas
2.4.20 Formal presentation
slide shows, brochures, etc.
2.4.21 Manuals and materials
agency workshop records
2.4.22 Field test data
139
All staff
All staff
Quintero
Killoran
7/1/86
7/15/86
9/1/86
6/30/87
6/30/87
3/15/87
C6/87
C12/86
C9/86
C12/86
C9/86
C9/86
at DCHP
D at Canyon
View
C6/87
at DCHP
C9186
C6/87
110
F.N.S. Project Tracking System And Person Loading Chart
Jely 1, 1984 through June 30, 1987
10/85 B = Behind Schedule
C = Completed by Date Indicated
D = Activity Discontinued
I = Activity Initiated
0 = Ongoing
M = Modified: Activity/Wording/Date
Objectives & Activities Documentation Respon. Initia. Comple. Status
for Monitoring Party Date Date
2.4.22.4 Start teaching
techniques
2.4.22.5 Conduct observations
and follow-up
2.4.22.6 Collect consumer
satisfaction data
Objectives & Activities for Goal 3
3.1 To determine the impact of
puppet shows and simulation
activities as methods for
preparing teachers, parents,
and normal children for
mainstreaming
Year Onel
3.1.1 Review literature pertain-
ing to use of puppetry and
simulation activities as
a means of positively in-
creasing attitudes toward
the handicapped
3.1.1.1 Conduct library
search for articles
related to objective
3.1.1.2 Review identified
articles for appro-
priateness to goal
3.1.2 Critique identified sys-
tems for effectiveness and
appropriateness for
young children, parents,
and teachers
e6/87
C5/87
C6/87
3.1.1 Writen technical
report/literature review
Quintero
Mott
9/5/84 10/5/84 C9/28/84
Killoran
Striefel
9/5/84 8/12/84 C9/12/84
9/12/84 10/5/84 C9/28/84
3.1.2 Written technical
paper
Quintero
Mott
10/5/84 11/23/84 C10-1/84
Killoran
Striefel
140
111
112
F.N.S. Project Tracking System And Person Loading Chart
July 1, 1984 through June 30, 1987
10/85 B = Behind Schedule
C = Completed by Date Indicated
D = Activity Discontinued
I = Activity Initiated
0 = Ongoing
M = Modified: Activity/Wording/Date
Objectives & Activities Documentation Respon. Initia. Comple. Statusfor Monitoring Party Date Date
3.1.2.1 Abstract identified 10/5/84 10/10/84 C9/28/84articles and organize
into working library
3.1.2.2 Write first draft 10/11/84 10/15/84 C10/1/84of literature review
3.1.2.3 Submit first draft 10/15/84 10/17/84 C10/1/84to project staff
for review
3.1.2.4 Revise literature 10/17/84 10/19/84 C10/30/84review as indicated by
staff feedback
3.1.2.5 Repeat 3.1.2.3 and 10/19/84 10/26/84 C3.1.2.4 as needed for
publication
3.1.2,6 Submit working draft 10/29/84 11/12/84 Cfor outside review
3.1.2.7 Revise as indicated 11/12/84 11/19/84 Cby outside reviewer
3.1.2.8 Produce final draft 11/19/84 11/23/84 Cof literature review
3.1.2.9 Submit for publication
if appropriate
3.1.3 Select system and adapt
as needed (including
attitudinal measure)
3.1.3 Draft of prototype
activities (including
attitudinal measures)
Mott
Quintero
11/23/84 12/7/84 C3/20/85
3.1.4 Operationalize evaluation 3.1.4 Written questions Mott 12/7/84 12/15/84 C2/1/85. questions Quintero
Killoran
3.1.5 Administer preattitudinal
measure3.1.5 Pre-measure results Mott
Quintero
1/5/85 2/1/85 C
Killoran
141
F.N.S. Project Tracking System And Person Loading Chart
July 1, 1984 the'sugh June 30, 1987
10/85 B = Behind Schedule
C = Completed by Date Indicated
D = Activity Discontinued
I = Activity Initiated
0 = Ongoing
M = Modified: Activity/Wording/Date
Objectives & Activities Documentation
for Monitoring
3.1.6 Field test puppet shows
and simulation activities,
revising as indicated
3.1.7 Administer post-
attitudinal measure
3.1.8 Analyze data and revise
puppet shows and simulation
activities as needed
3.1.9 Develop user's manuals/
materials for puppet
shows and simulations
Year Twol
3.1.10 Operationalize research
questions to be answered
in group experimental
studies and follow-up
3.1.11 Train data collectors,
obtian written permission
from all participants in
study
3.1.12 Conduct field test of
puppet shows/simulations
with total population,
implement experimental
control group studies
3.1.13 Modify and revise proto-
type as indicated by field
test data
3.1.14 Prepare final draft of
puppet shows/simulations
3.1.6 Training schedule;
written procedural guide;
field test data
3.1.7 Post-measure results
3.1.8 Graphic and narrative
summaries; revised draft of
activities
3.1.9 Copy of user's manual
3.1.10 Written research
proposal and questions
3.1.11 Training data (reli-
ability scores), written
permission
3.1.12 Field test data
3.1.13 Puppet show/simula-
tion prototype
3.1.14 High quality
materials for replication
and dissemination
142
Respon. Initia. Comple. Status
Party Date Date
Mott 1/5/85 5/1/85 C
Quintero
Killoran
Mott 5/1/85 6/1/85 C
Quintero
Mott 6/1/85 8/1/85 C6/28/85
Quintero
Killoran
Mott 1/5/85 8/1/85 C6/28/85
Quintero
Killoran
Striefel
Quintero 7/1/85 8/1/85 C8/85
Killoran
Cogar
Quintero 8/1/85 8/30/85 C9/85
Killoran
Cogar
Quintero 9/1/85 4/1/86 C3/86
Killoran
Cogar
Quintero 4/1/86 6/1/86 C8/86
Killoran
Schropp
Quintero 6/1/86 7/1/86 C8/36
Killoran
Schropp
113
F.M.S. Project Tracking System And Person Loading Chart
July 1, 1984 through June 30, 1987
10/85 B = Behind Schedule
C = Completed by Date Indicated
0 = Activity Discontinued
I = Activity Initiated
0 = Ongoing
M = Modified: Activity/Wording/Date
Objectives & Activities Documentation
for Monitoring
Respon. Initia. Comple. Status
Party Date Date
3.1.15 Revise user's guide for
puppet shows/simulations
3.1.16 Prepare results for dissem-
ination
Draft completed
3.1.17 Identify LEA and preschool
providers for replication
Edith Bowen
3.1.18 Revise procedures and
materials for integration
into demonstration model
package
3.1.19 Synthesize all puppet
shows/simulations and pro-
cedures into an exportable
form which facilitates
replication
Year Three'
3.1.15 Copy of user's guide
3.1.16 Manuscripts submitted
for publication
3.1.19 Written commitments
from/to agencies
3.1.20 Individual procedures
and materials fully revised
and ready to integrate in
package form
3.1.21 Final instructional
package
Quintero
Killoran
Schropp
Quintero
Killoran
Schropp
Quintero
Killoran
Schropp
Quintero
Killoran
Schropp
Quintero
Killoran
Striefel
Schropp
6/1/86
6/15/86
4/1/86
6/1/86
6/1/86
7/1/86
8/15/86
7/15/86
8/1/86
8/1/86
Objectives 3.1 & 3.2 have been combined into a total preparation package and are addressed
in Year Three
3.1.20 Document all start-up and
maintenance costs
3.1.20.1 Summarize monthly, time
spent by FMS and field
site staff'on training
of preparation activities
3.1.20.2 Summarize monthly,
costs of preparation
activities
3.1.22 Written manuscripts
143
Quintero
Killoran
Schropp
7/1/86 5/1/87
C10/86
C6/87
C12/86
C9/86
0
0
C5/87
C
C
114
F.M.S. Project Tracking System And Person Loading Chart
Jiffy 1, 1984 through June 30, 1987
10/85 B = Behind Schedule
C = Completed by Date Indicated
D = Activity Discontinued
I = Activity Initiated
0 = Ongoing
M = Modified: Activity/Wording/Date
Objectives & Activities Documentation Respon. Initia. Comple. Status
for Monitoring Party Date Date
3.1.20.3 Compute cost analysis
3.1.21 Disseminate project at
local, state and national
levels
3.1.22 Prepare agencies for field
test of project package
3.1 22.1 Contact district person-
nel, principals, and/or
program directors
3.1.22.2 Obtain permissions
necessary
3.1.22.3 Establish timelines for
replication activities
3.1.22.4 Gather student base-
line assessment data
3.1.23 Conduct field test and
revise as indicated
-Edith Bowen Kindergarten
-Pepeated Win new child
3.1.23.1 Conduct teacher and
parent preparation
-Edith Bowen Kindergarten
-Repeated with new child
3.1.23.2 Conduct training, as
needel
-Edith Bowen Kindergarten
-Repeated with new child
3.1.23.3 Collect child base
line data
-Edith Bowen Kindergarten
-Repeated with new child
3.1.23 Formal presentations,
slide shows, brochures, etc.
3.1.24 Manuals and materials
agency workshop records
3.1.25 Field test data
144
All staff
All staff
Quintero
Killoran
Sctr opp
Schropp
Schropp
Schropp
7/1/86
7/15/86
9/1/86
6/30/87
6/30/87
3/15/87
C6/87
C6/87
C
C
C
C
0
C1/87
C4/87
C2/87
C4/87
C2/87
C4/87
C1-2/87
C2/87
115
F.M.S. Project Tracking System And Person Loading Chart
July 1, 1984 through June 30, 1987
10/85 B = Behind Schedule
C r Completed by Date Indicated
D = Activity Discontinued
I = Activity Initiated
0 = Ongoing
M = Modified: Activity/Wording/Date
Cbjectives & Activities
3.1.23.4 Implement peer
preparation through
parents and teachers
3.1.23.5 Collect post-preparation
child data and
follow-up
3.1.23.6 Collect consumer
satisfaction data
3.1.24 Analyze data and prepare
study for dissemination
3.2 To determine methods to
prepare teachers, parents,
and normal children for
mainstreaming
Year Onel
3.2.1 Review literature and iden-
tify activities other than
puppet shows and simulation
activities effective in
mainstreaming preparations
3.2.1.1 Conduct library
search for articles
related to objective
3.2.1.2 Review identified
articles for appro-
priateness to goal
3.2.2 Critique identified activ-
sties for effectiveness
and appropriateness for use
Documentation Respon. Initia. Comple. Status
for Monitoring Party Date Date
C2/87
C4/87
C2-5/87
C8/87
3.1.26 Written manuscript
and submitted for publica-
tion
Quintero
Killoran
Striefel
3/15/87 4/30/87 C6/87
3.2.1 Literature review Quintero 9/5/84 11/15/84 C10/2
Killoran
Ahoraiyan
Yanito
9/5/84 9/26/84 C9/17
9/26/84 11/15/84 C9/25
3.2.2 Literature review Quintero 11/15/84 12/15/84 C1/2/85
Ahoraiyan
Mott
Yanito
145
116
F.M.S. Project Tracking System And Person Loading Chart
Ally 1, 1984 through June 30, 1987
10/85 B Behind Schedule
C Completed by Date Indicated
Activity Discotinued
I = Activity Initiated
0 = Ongoing
M = Modified: Activity/Wording/Date
Objectives & Activities bocumentation
for Monitoring
3.2.3 Select activities and
adapt as needed including
attitudinal measures
3.2.4 Operationalize evaluation
questions to be studied
3.2.5 Administer pre-
attitudinll masures
3.2.6 Field test activities as
indicated
3.2.7 Administer post-
attitudinal measure
3.2.8 Analyze data and revise
activities as indicated
3.2.9 Combine puppet shows,
simulations, and activities
3.2.10 Operationalize evaluation
questions
3.2.3 Draft of prototype
activities including
attitudinal measures
3.2.4 Written questions
3.2.5 Pre-measure results
3.2.6 Field test schedules
and data; written pro-
cedural manual
3.2.7 Post-measure results
3.2.8 Graphic and narrative
summaries; revised activ-
ities manual
3.2.9 Draft of combined
prototype activities
3.2.10 Written questions
ads
Respon. Initia. Comple. Status
Party Date Date
Quintero 11/15/84 12/30/84 C3/20/85
Ahoraiyan
Mott
Quintero 11/1/84 12/15/84 C2/1/85
Ahoraiyan
Yanito
Mott
Quintero 1/5/85 2/1/85 C
Mott
Ahoraiyan
Yanito
Quintero 1/5/85 3/1/85 C
Mott
Yanito
Ahoraiyan
Quintero 3/1/85 4/1/85 C
Mott
Yanito
Ahoraiyan
Quintero 4/1/85 5/1/85 C
Mott
Yanito
Ahoraiyan
Quintero 4/5/85 7/1/85 C6/28/85
Mott
Yanito
Ahoraiyan
Quintero 4/15/85 5/15/85 C3/85
Mott 8/85
Yanito
Ahoraiyan
117
F.M.S. Project Tracking System And Person loading Chart
July 1, 1984 through Jame 30, 1987
10/85 B = Behind Schedule
C = Completed by Date IndicatedD = Activity Discontinued
I = Activity Initiated
0 = Ongoing
M = Modified: Activity/Wording/Date
Objectives & Activities Documentation
for Monitoring
3.2.11 Administer pre-
attitudinal measure
(pre/post measures are
taken at time of field
test)
3.2.12 Field test combined activ-
ities, revising as needed
Year Twol
3.2.13 Administer post-
attitudinal measure
3.2.14 Analyze data; revise as
indicated
3.2.15 Develop combined user's
manual
3.2:16 Operationllize research
questions to be answ(red
in group experimental
studies and follow-up
Sunrise
3.2.17 Train data collectors,
obtain written permission
from all participants in
study
3.2.18 Conduct experimental
test of prototype with
total population; imple-
ment experimental control
group studies
3.2.11 Pre-measure results
3.2.12 Field test schedules
and data, written pro-
cedural manual
3.2.13 Post-measure results
3.2.14 Graphic and narrative
summaries, revised combined
manual
3.2.15 Copy of manual
3.2.16 Written research
proposal and questions
3.2.17 Training data (reli-
ability scores), written
permissions
3.2.18 Experimental test
data
147
Respon. Initia. Comple. Status
Party Date Date
Quintero 6/15/85 6/30/85 M6/85
Mott
Yanito
Ahoraiyan
Quintero 6/15/85 8/15/85 C9/85
Mott
Yanito
Ahoraiyan
Quintero 8/7/85 8/15/85 M6/85
Phelps
Thornburg
Quintero 8/15/85 9/15/85 C9/85
Phelps
Thornburg
Quintero 7/1/85 8/1/85 Cl1d86
Phelps
Thornburg
Quintero 7/1/85 8/1/86 C1/86
Phelps
Thornburg
Quintero 8/1/85 9/1/85 C9/85
Phelps
Thornburg
Quintero 9/1/86 4/1/87 C3/86
Phelps
Thornburg
118
F.A.S. Project Tracking System And Person Loading Chart
JO1y 1, 1984 through June 30, 1987
10/85 8 Behind Schedule
C Completed by Date Indicated
D in Activity Discontinued
I Activity Initiated
0 Ongoing
M Modified: Activity/Wording/Date
Obtectives & Activities Oocumentation Respon. Initia. Comple. Status
for Monitoring Party Date Oate
Sunrise with Pat Barton's
class
3.2.19 Modify and revise proto-
type as indicated by
field test data
3.2.20 Prepare final draft of
preparation package and
materials
3.2.21 Revise user's 94de for
preparation pukage and
procedures
3.2.22 Summarize single-subject
study results for
publication
3.2.23 Prepare group experi-
mental study results for
publication
3.2.24 Collect follow-up data
P
3.2.19 Final draft
3.2.20 High quality
materials for replication
and dissemination
3.2.21 Copy of user's guide
3.2.22 Written summary
available; submitted
manuscripts
3.2.23 Written summary
available; submitted
manuscripts
3.2.24 Written follow-up
data
148
Quintero 4/1/86 6/1/86 C8/86
Phelps
Thornburg
Quintero 6/1/86 7/1/86 C11/86
Phelps
Thornburg
Killoran
Striefel
Quintero 6/1/86 7/1/86 C11/86
Phelps
Thornburg
Killoran
Striefel
Quintero 6/15/86 8/15/86 0
Phelps
Thornburg
Killoran
Striefel
Quintero 6/15/86 8/15/86 0
Phelps
Thornburg
Killoranl
Striefel
Quintero 4/1/86 3/1/87 ID
Phelps
Thornburg)
Killoran
Striefel
119
F.N.S. Project Tracking System Acid Person Loading Chart
July 1, 1984 through June 30, 1987
10/85 B = Behind Schedule
C = Completed by Date IndicatedD Activity Discontinued
I = Activity Initiated
D . Ongoing
M = Modified: Activity/Wording/Date
Objectives & Activities Documentation Respon. Initia. Comple. Status
for Monitoring Party Date Date
3.2.25 Identify LEA and pre- 3.2.25 Written commitments
schools for replication from agencies
Edith Bowen
3.2.26 Prepare procedures and
materials for integration
into total model package
3.2.27 Synthesize all prepara-
tion materials and proce-
dures into an exportable
form which facilitates
replication
Objectives & Activities for Goal 4
4.1 To develop and implement two-
way communication, education,
and decision making system
concerned with mainstreaming
for families of handicapped
children
Year Onel
4.1.1 Identify communication
systems previously found
effective between parents
and schools
4.1.1.1 Conduct library
search for artici.ss
related to objective
4.1.1.2 Review identified
articles for appro-
priateness to goal
3.2.26 Individual procedures
and materials fully revised
and ready to integrate in
package form
3.2.27 Final model package
4.1.1 Literature review
149
Quintero
Phelps
Thornburg
Killoran
Striefel
Quintero
Phelps
Thornburg
Killoran
Striefel
Quintero
Phelps
Thornburg
Killoran
Striefel
Quintero
Ahoraiyan
Killoran
4/1/86
6/1/86
15/1/86
9/5/84
9/5/84
9/14/84
7/15/86
8/1/86
8/1/86
10/15/84
9/14/84
9/21/84
C8-9/86
C11/86
D
C10/9/84
C10/84
C10/84
120
F.M.S. Project Tracking System And Person Loading Chart
July 1, 1984 through June 30, 1987
10/85 B = Behind Schedule
C = Completed by Date Indicated
D = Activity Discontinued
I = Activity Initiated
0 = Ongoing
M = Modified: Activity/Wording/Date
Objc:tives & Activities Documentation
for Monitoring
4.1.1.3 Abstract identified
articles and organize
into working library
4.1.1.4 Summarize systems
review in written form
4.1.2 Develop or adapt prototype
system which incorporates
proactive communication,
informative printed mater-
ials, and parent handbooks
4.1.3 Operationalize evaluation
system
4.1.4 Field test system with
single subjects, revising
as necessary
4.1.5 Analyze data, revising
system as indicated
4.1.6 Develop draft of user's
manual
Year Twol
4.1.7 Operationalize research
questions to be answered
in group experimental
studies and follow-up
4.1.8 Train data collectors,
obtain written permission
from all participants in
study
4.1.2 Prototype
4.1.3 Written questions
4.1.4 Field test schedules
and data
4.1.5 Graphic and narrative
summaries
4.1.6 Final draft of com-
munication system manual
4.1.7 Written research
proposal and questions
4.1.8 Training data (reli-
ability scores), written
permissions
150
Respon. Initia. Comple. Status
Party Date Date
9/14/84 9/21/84 C10/84
C1/15/85
Killoran 10/15/84 11/15/84 C8/85
Quintero
Ahoraiyan
Killoran 11/15/84 12/15/84 C2/1/85
Quintero
Ahoraiyan
All staff 12/15/84 5/30/85 C5/11/85
Ahoraiyan 5/30/85 8/15/85 C8/86
Quintero
Quintero 12/15/84 9/1/85 C8/86
Ahoraiyan
Killoran
Striefel
Quintero 7/1/85 8/1/85 C11/85
Cogar
Killoran
Quintero 8/1/85 9/1/85 C9/85
Cogar
Killoran
121
F.ILS. Project Tracking System Mad Person Loading Chart
Ally 1, 1984 through Jane 30, 1987
10/85 B = Behind Schadule
C = Completed by Date Indicated
D = Activity Discontinued
I = Activity Initiated
0 = Ongoing
M = Modified: Activity/Wording/Date
Objectives & Activities Documentation
for Monitoring
4.1.9 Conduct experimental
test of prototype with
total population; imple-
ment experimental control
group studies
4.1.10 Modify and revise proto-
type as indicated by
field test data
4.1.10.1 Retest as needed to
obtain ongoing parent
reactions
4.1.11 Prepare final draft of
communication package
materials
4.1.12 Revise user's guide for
communication package
procedures
4.1.13 Summarize single-subject
study results
4.1.14 Identify LEA and pre-
schools for replication
4.1.15 Prepare communication pro-
cedures and materials for
integration into total
model package
4.1.9 Experimental test
data
4.1.10 Final draft
4.1.11 High quality mater-
ials for replication and
dissemination
4.1.12 Copy of user's guide
4.1.13 Written summary
available
4.1.16 Written commitments
from agencies
4.1.17 Individual procedures
and materials fully revised
and ready to integrate in
package form
151
Respon. Initia. Comple. Status
Party Date Date
Quintero 9/1/85 3/1/86 C12/85
Cogar
Killoran
Quintero 3/1/86 4/1/86 C7/86
Killoran
Striefel
Schropp
4/1/86 Quarterly
Ongoing Assess-
ment
C6/87
Quintero 4/1/86 5/1/86 C11/86
Killoran
Striefel
Schropp
Quintero 5/1/86 6/1/86 C11/86
Killoran
Striefel
Schropp
Quintero 6/1/86 8/1/86 C
Killoran
Striefel
Schropp
Quintero 4/1/86 7/15/86 C8/86
Killoran
Schropp
Quintero 6/1/86 8/1/86 C8/86
Killoran
Striefel
Schropp
122
F.M.S. Project Tracking System And Person Loading Chart
July 1, 1984 through June 30, 1987
10/85 B = Behind Schedule I = Activity Initiated
C = Completed by Date Indicated 0 = Ongoing
= Activity Discontinued M = Modifieo: Activity/Wording/Date
Objectives & Activities Documentation Respon. Initia. Comple. Status
for Monitoring Party Date Date
4.1.16 Synthesize all communica-
tion materials and proce-
dures into an exportable
form which facilitates
replication
4.1.17 Document all start-up
and maintenance costs
4.1.18 Disseminate project at
local, state, and national
levels
4.1.19 Prepare agencies for
field test of the project
package
4.1.20 Distribute manual to
dissemination sites
4.1.21 Conduct field tests and
revise as indicated
4.1.21.1 Complete parent
questionnaire
4.1.21.2 Conduct parent training
as needed
Conducted at DCHP and
Canyon View
4.1.21.3 Conduct post assessment
of parent questionnaire
4.1.18 Final model package
4.1.19 Written manuscripts
4.1.20 Format presentations,
slide shows, brochures, etc.
4.1.21 Manuals and mater-
ials agency workshop
records
4.1.22 Project manual and
materials mailed or hand
delivered to agencies
4.1.23 Field test data
Quintero
Killoran
Striefel
Schropp
6/1/86
Quintero 7/1/86
Killoran
Schropp
All Staff 7/1/86
All staff
All staff
All staff
Year Onel THIS OBJECTIVE IS AOORESSED THROUGH GOAL ONE ACTIVITIES
152
7/15/86
7/15/86
9/1/86
8/1/86
B/1/87
6/30/87
6/30/87
8/1/86
3/15/87
C11/86
C6/87
C6/87
C5/87
C8/86
C12/87
C9/86 1/87,5/87
C12/86
D
123
F.M.S. Project Tracking System And Person Loading Ckurt
July 1, 1984 through June 30, 1987
10/85 B = Behind Schedule
C = Completed by Date IndicatedD = Activity Discontinued
I = Activity Initiated
0 = Ongoing
M = Modified: Activity/Wording/Date
Objectives & Activities Documentation
for Monitoring
4.2.1 Identify teacher expecta-
tions through teacher
expectations package
4.2.2 Develop prototype for
identifying student
expectation "deficits'
and curriculum selection
criteria
4.2.3 Conduct expert review of
prototype
4.2.4 Revise prototype based
on expert review
Year Twoi
4.2.5 Operational research
questions to be answered
in pilot single-subject
studies
4.2.6 Develop data system,
train data collectors,
obtain written permission
from all participants
in study
4.2.7 Develop manual outlining
curriculum and selection
and training, procedures
4.2.8 Revise prototypes based
on field test data, field
test/revision cycle until
outcomes are achieved
4.2.1 'Expectation" package
piotocols
4.2.2 Draft of prototype
4.2.3 Written critique and
feedback on prototype
4.2.4 Revised prototype
4.2.5 Written research
proposal
4.2.6 Written permission
from involved participants
and data from training
(i.e., reliability scores
across collectors)
4.2.7 Field test data
4.2.8 Revised prototype
package
153
Respon. Initia. Comple. Status
Party Date Date
Killoran 4/1/85 4/30/85 C
Quintero
Ahoraiyan
Killoran 5/1/85 6/1/85 C
Quintero
Ahoraiyan
Killoran 6/1/85 6/15/85 C
Quintero
Killoran 6/15/85 7/30/55 C
Quintero
Ahoraiyan
Killoran 7/1/85 8/1/85 C
Quintero
Cogar
Killoran 8/1/85 9/1/85 C
Quintero
Cogar
Killoran 9/1/85 12/1/85 C
Quintero
Cogar
Killoran 12/1/85 1/1/86 C
Quintero
Cogar
Striefel
124
F.A.S. Project Tracking System And Person Loading Chart
'kg), 1, 1984 through June 30, 1987
10/85 B . Behind Schedule
C = Completed by Date Indicated
0 = Activity Discontinued
I = Activity Initiated
0 = Ongoing
M = Modified: Activity/Wording/Date
Objectives & Activities Documentation
for Monitoring
4.2.9 Operationa:ize research
questions to be answered
in group experimental
studies and follow-up
4.2.10 Develop data system,
train data collectors,
obtain written permission
from all participants in
study
4.2.11 Conduct field test of
prototype with total
population, implement
experimental control
group studies
4.2.12 Modify and revise proto-
type as indicated by field
test data
4.2.13 Prepare final draft of
entry skills package
4.2.14 Develop user's guide for
entry skills package
4.2.15 Prepare single-subject
study results for
publication
4.2.16 Prepare experimental study
results for publication
4.2.9 Written research
proposal and questions
4.2.10 Training data (reli-
ability scores), written
permissions
4.2.11 Field test data
4.2.12 Final draft
4.2.13 High quality mater-
ials for replication and
dissemination
4.2.14 Copy of user's guide
4.2.15 Manuscripts submitted
for publication
4.2.16 Manuscripts submitted
for publication
154
Respon. Initia. Comple. Status
Party Date Date
Killoran 12/1/85 12/15/85 M
Quintero
Cogar
Killoran 12/15/85 1/1/85 M
Quintero
Cogar
Killoran 1/1/86 5/15/86 C
Quintero
Cogar
Killoran 5/15/86 6/1/86 C
Quintero
Cogar
Striefel
Killoran 6/1/86 7/1/86 C
Quintero
Cogar
Striefel
Killoran 5/1/86 7/1/86 C
Quintero
Cogar
Striefel
Killoran 6/15/86 8/15/86 M
Quintero
Cogar
Striefel
Killoran 6/15/86 8/15/86 0
Quintero
Cogar
Striefel
125
F.M.S. Project Tracking System And Person Loading Chart
July 1, 1984 through June 30, 1987
10/85 B = Behind Schedule
C = Completed by Date Indicated
= Activity Discontinued
I = Activity Initiated
0 . Ongoing
M = Modified: Activity/Wording/Date
Objectives & Activities Documentation
for Monitoring
4.2.17 Collect follow-up data
4.2.18 Identify LEAs and pre-
schools for replication
4.2.19 Synthesize entry skills
materials and procedures
into an exportable form
which facilitates
replication
Year Three'
4.2.20 Document all start-up
and maintenance costs
4.2.21 Disseminate project at
local, state, and national
levels
4.2.22 Prepare agencies for field
test of project package
4.2.23 Conduct field test and
revise as necessary
4.3 Develop and implement pro-
cedures to psycholo:ically
. and emotionally prepare hand{ -1
capped children and their
families for mainstr.0aming
Year Onel
4.2.17 Written follow-up
data
4.2.18 Written commitments
from/to agencies
4.2.19 Final instructional
package
4.2.20 Written manuscripts
4.2.21 Formal presentations,
slide shows, brochure, etc.
4.2.22 Manuals and mater-
ials, agency workshop
records
4.2.23 Field test data
1 Fi 5
Respon. Initia. Comple. Status
Party Date Date
Killoran
Quintero
Cogar
4/1/86 81 '86
Killoran 4/1/86 7/15/86 M
Quintero
Cogar
Killoran 6/1/86 8/1/86 C
Quintero
Cogar
Striefel
Killoran 7/1/86 5/1/87 C
Quintero
Cogar
All staff 7/1/86 6/30/87 C.
Killoran 7/15/86 6/30/87 C
Quintero
Cogar
Killoran 9/1/86 3/15/87 C
Quintero
Cogar
M
126
127
F.M.S. Project 'racking System And Person Loading Chart
Ally 1, 1984 through June 30, 1987
10/85 8 = Behind Schedule
C = Completed by Date Indicated
D = Activity Discontinued
I = Activity Initiated
0 . Ongoing
M = Modified: Activity/Wording/Date
Objectives & Activities Documentation Respon. Initia. Comple. Status
for Monitoring Party Date Date
4.3.1 Review literature pertain-
ing to emotional stresses
and changes occurring dur-
ing mainstream placements
4.3.1 Literature review Ahoraiyan
Quintero
Striefel
Killoran
9/14/84 11/2/84 M9/85
4.3.1.1 Conduct library 9/14/84 9/21/84 C2/1/85
search for articles
related to objective
4.3.1.2 Review identified 9/21/84 10/5/84 C2/1/85
articles for appro-
priateness to goal
4.3.1.3 Abstract identified 10/5/84 10/19/84 C2/15/85
articles and organize
into working library
4.3.1.4 Summarize information 10/22/84 11/2/84 C8/85
in written form
4.3.2 Identify factors relating
to model populations
4.3.2 Literature review Ahoraiyan
Quintero
9/14/84 12/2/84 C9/85
4.3.2.1 Conduct library 9/14/84 9/21/84 C9/85
search for articles
related to objective
4.3.2.2 Review identified 9/21/84 10/5/84 C9/85
articles for appro-
priateness to goal
4.3.2.3 Abstract identified 10/5/84 10/26/84 C9/85
articles and organize
into working library
4.3.2.4 Summarize factors 10/26/84 11/2/84 C9/85
into written form
4.3.3 Operationalize evaluation
questions
4.3.3 Written questions Ahoraiyan
Quintero
11r/84 12/2/84 C9/85
Killoran
1.16
F.M.S. Project Tracking System And Person Loading Chart
July 1, 1984 through June 30, 1987
10/85 B = Behind Schedule
C . Completed by Date Indicatad
D = Activity Discontinued
I = Activity Initiated
0 . Ongoing
M . Modified: Activity/Wording/Date
Objecti"es & Activities Documentation
for Monitoring
Respon. Initia. Comple. Status
Party Date Date
4.3.3.1 Using review infor-
mation, list evaluation
questions pertinent to
population
4.3.4 Develop activities dealing
with identified factors
amd summarize in draft of
prototype
4.3.5 Field test activities,
revising as needed
4.3.6 Analyze results and incor-
porate findings into
preparation activities
4.3.7 Develop final activities
Individual differaces
Theme for Week One
Year Twol
4.3.8 Operationalize research
questions to be answered
in group experimental
studies and follow-up
4.3.9 Train data collectors,
obtain written permission
from all participants in
study
4.3.10 Conduct experimental
test of prototype with
total population; imple-
ment experimental control
group studies
(Conducted with 2 classes)
4.3.11 Modify and revise proto-
4.3.4 Draft of prototype
activities
4.3.5 Written field test
schedules, data sheets/
observation forms
4.3.6 Graphic and narrative
summaries
4.3.7 Draft of final
activities
4.3.8 Written research
proposal and questions
4.3.9 Training data (reli-
ability scores), written
permissions
4.3.10 Experimental test
data
4.3.11 Final draft
157
Ahoraiyan 11/2/84 1/5/85 C9/85
Quintero
Ahoraiyan 1/5/85 6/30/85 C3/86
Quintero
Ahoraiyan 6/30/85 9/1/85 C3/86
Quintero Ongoing
Ahoraiyan 6/30/85 9/15/85 C9/86
Quintero Ongoing
Cogar 9/1/85 9/15/85 C3/86
Quintero
Cogar 9/1/85 9/30/85 C3/86
Quintero
Cogar 9/30/85 5/1/86 C3/86
Quintero
Killoran
Cogar 10/30/85 6/1/86 C6/86
F.N.S. Project Tracking System And Person Loading Chart
July 1, 1984 through June 30, 1987
10/85 B = Behind Schedule
C = Completed by Date Indicated
D = Activity Discontinued
I = Activity Initiated
0 = Ongoing
M = Modified: Activity/Wording/Date
Objectives & Activities Documentation Respon. Initia. Comple. Status
for Monitoring Party Date Date
4.3.11 Modify and revise proto-
type as indicated by
field test data
4.3.11 Final draft Cogar
Quintero
Killoran
Striefel
10/30/85 6/1/86 C6/86
Preschool: This area is addressed through MESA-PK & Parent Prep. for Transition; & Buddies in
Reverse Mainstreaming
4.3.12 Prepare revised draft of
special needs preparation
package materials
4.3.13 Revise user's guide for
special needs preparation
package procedures
4.3.14 Summarize results
4.3.15 Collect follow-up data
4.3.16 Identify LEA and pre-
schools for replication
4.3.17 Prepare procedures and
materials for integration
into total model package
4.3.12 High quality mater-
ials for replication and
dissemination
4.3.13 Copy of use'rs guide
4.3.14 Written summary
available
4.3.1.6 Written follow-up
data
4.3.17 Written commitments
from agencies
4.3.18 Individual procedures
and materials fully revised
and ready to integrate in
package form
1!8
Quintero
Killoran
Striefel
Schropp
Quintero
Killoran
Striefel
Schropp
Quintero
Killoran
Striefel
Schropp
Quintero
Killoran
Striefel
Schropp
Quintero
Killoran
Schropp
Quintero
Killoran
Striefel
Schropp
6/1/86
5/1/86
7/1/86
8/30/86
4/1/86
6/1/86
8/1/86
8/1/86
9/1/86
3/1/86
7/15/86
8/1/86
D
D
M
C2/87
C7/86
C9/86
F.A.S. Project Tracking System And Person Loading Chart
July 1. 1984 through June 30, 1987
10/85 B = Behind Schedule
C = Completed by Date Indicated
D = Activity Discontinued
I = Activity Initiated
0 = Ongoing
M = Modified: Activity/Wording/Date
Objectives & Activities Documentation Respon. Initia. Comple. Status
for Monitoring Party Date Date
4.3.18 Synthesize all prepara-
tion materials and proce-
dures into an exportable
form which facilitates
replication
Year Three
4.3.19 Document all start-up
and maintenance costs
4.3.20 Prepare agencies for
field test of the project
package
DCHP
Canyon View
4.3.20.1 Contact district person-
nel, principals, and/or
program directors
4.3.20.2 Obtain permissions
necessary
4.3.20.3 Establish timelines for
replication activities
4.3.20.4 Gather student baseline
assessment data
4.3.21 Distribute manual to
dissemination sites
4.3.22 Distribute manual to
sites
4.3.19 Final model package
4.3.20 Written manuscripts
4.3.22 Manuals and materials
agency workshop records
4.3.23 Project manual and
materials mailed or hand
delivered to agencies
4.3.24 Field test data
159
Quintero 7/15/86 8/30/86 C9/86
Killoran
Striefel
Schropp
Quintero 7/15/85 6/87 C6/87
Killoran
Schropp
All staff 7/1/86 8/8/86 C9/86
9/86 C9/86
9/86 C9/86
9/86 C9/86
9/86 C9/86
All staff 8/1/86 9/1/86 C9/86
C12/86
Quintero 9/1/86 3/15/87 C9/86
C12/86
130
F.M.S. Project Tracking System And Person loading Chart
July 1, 1984 through June 30, 1987
10/85 B = Behind Schedule
C = Completed by Date Indicated
0 = Activity Discontinued
I = Activity Initiated
0 = Ongoing
M = Modified: Activity/Wording/Date
Objectives & Activities Documentation
for Monitoring
Respon. Initia. Comple. Status
Party Date Date
Objectives & Activities for Goal 5
5.1 To determine teacher's famil-
iarity with special education
techniques and handicapping
conditions and to provide
inservice training as needed
Year Onel
5.1.1 Review literature review
pertaining to (a) needs
assessments of teaching
skills needed in main-
stream settings; and
(b) effective inservice
training procedures
5.1.1.1 Conduct library
search for articles
related to objective
5.1.1.2 Review identified
articles for appro-
priateness to goal
5.1.1.3 Abstract identified
articles and organize
into working library
5.1.1.4 Write first draft
of literature review
5.1.1.5 Submit first draft
to project staff for
review
5.1.1.6 Revise literature
review as indicated by
staff feedback
5.1.1 Literature review
160
Mott
Yanito
Quintero
Striefel
11/15/84
11/15/84
11/15/84
11/21/84
2/1/85 IC
11/22/84 C12/15/84
11/21/84
12/5/84
12/5/84 12/12/84
12/12/84 12/14/84
12/17/84 12/19/84
C12/21/84
C2/28/85
C2/28/85
C2/28/85
0
131
F.M.S. Project Tracking System And Person Loading Chart
July 1, 1983 through June 30, 1987
10/85 B n Behind Schedule
C Completed by Date Indicated
D Activity Discontinued
I Activity Initiated
0 Ongoing
H Modified: Activity/Wording/Date
Objectives & Activities Documentation
for Monitorin'
ttlote: found available reviews)
5.1.1.7 Repeat 5.1.1.5 and
5.1.1.6 as needed
5.1.1.8 Submit working draft
for outside review
5.1.1.9 Revise as indicated
by outside reviewer
5.1.1.10 Produce final draft
of literature review
5.1.1.11 Submit for publi-
cation if appropriate
5.1.2 Identify (a) needs assess-
ment and (b) inservice pro-
cedures appropriate for
project use
5.1.3 Select procedures and
adopt as needed (MESA-PK
selected as needs assess-
ment)
5;44Operationalize evaluation
questions
5.1.5 Field test needs assess-
ment and inservice
activities
- Brooki Sexton, DCHP
- K. Rhees, Edith Bowen
- DCHP Transition Kids
(Summer 1986)
5.1.2 Literature review
5.1.3 Draft of prototype
needs assessment and
inservice activities
5.1.4 Written questions
5.1.5 Field test schedules,
anecdotal notes, data
sheets/observational forms
16.1
Respon. Initia. Comple. Status
Part Date Oate
12/19/84 1/11/85 ID
1/11/85 1/25/85 0
1/25/85 1/29/85 D
1/R9/85 2/1/85 D
D
Mott 11/15/84 2/1/85 C8/85
Yanito
Quintero
Striefel
Mott 1/15/85 2/15/85 C5/85
Yanito
Quintero
Striefel
Mott 1/15/85 2/15/85 C8/85
Yanito
Quintero
Striefel
Mott 2/15/85 6/30/85 C3/86
Yanito 1/86
Quintero 7/86
Striefel
132
F.N.S. Project Tricking System And Person Loading Chart
Jay 1, 1984 through June 30, 1987
10/85 B m Behind Schedule
C Completed by Date Indicated
0 m Activity Discontinued
I m Activity Initiated
0 Ongoing
M Modified: Activity/Wording/Date
Objectives i Activities Documentation
for Monitoring
5.1.6 Analyze results and incor-
porate into inservice
training activities
- Development of 23 com-
petencies for preschool
Year Twol
5.1.7 Operationalize research
questions to be answered
in group experimental
studies and follow-up
5.1.8 Train data collectors,
obtain written permission
from all participants in
study
5.1.9 Conduct experimental
test of prototype with
total population; imple-
ment experimental ccutfal
group studies
5.1.10 Modify and revise proto-
type as indicated by
field test data
5.1.11 Prepare draft of training
package matericls
5.1.12 Revise user's guide for
training package
procedures
5.1.13 Summarize singlesubject
results
5.1.6 Graphic and narrative
summaries; revised needs
assessments and inservice
activities
5.1.7 Wrten research
proposal and questions
5.1.8 Training data (reli-
ability scores), written
permissions
5.1.9 Experimental test
data
5.1.10 Final draft
5.1.11 High quality mater-
ials for replication and
dissemination
5.1.12 Copy of user's guide
5.1.13 Written summary
available
162
Respon. Initia. Comple. Status
party Date Da'e
Mott 6/30/85 9/1/85 C7/86
Yanito
Quintero
Striefel
Quintero 7/1/85 8/1/85 C8/85
Striefel
Allred
Quintero 8/1/85 8/30/85 C9/5
Striefel
Allred
Quintero
ariefel9/1/85 4/1/86 C8/86
Allred
Quintero 4/1/86 ;C/1/86 C8/86
Striefel
Allred
Quintero 6/1/86 7/1/86 C9/86
Striefel
llred
Quintero 6/1/86 7/1/86 C1::86
Striefel
Allred
Quintero 6/15/86 3/15/86
Striefel
Allred
133
F.A.S. Project Tracking System And Person Loading Chart
July 1, 1984 through June 30, 1987
10/85 B = Behind Schedule
C . Completed by Date Indicated
D = Activity Discontinued
I = Activity Initiated
0 = Ongoing
M = Modified; Activity/Wording/Date
Objectives & Activities Documentation
for Monitoring
Respon. Initia. Comple. Status
Party Date Date
5.1.14 Prepare group experi-
mental study results fog
publication
5.1.15 Collect follow-up data
5.1.16 Identify LEA and pre-
schools for replication
5.1.17 Prepare procedures and
materials for integration
into total model package
5.1.18 Synthesize all training
materials and procedures
into an exportable form
which facilitates
replication
Year Three'
5.1.14 Written summary
available
5.1.15 Written follow-up
data
5.1.16 Written commitments
from agencies
5.1.17 Individual procedures
and materials fully revised
and ready to integrate in
package form
5.1.18 Final model package
Quintero
Striefel
Allread
Quintero
Striefel
Allred
Quintero
Striefel
Allred
Quintero
Striefel
Allred
Quintero
Striefel
Allred
6/15/86
4/1/86
4/1/86
6/1/86
6/1/86
3/15/86
3/1/86
7/15/86
8/1/86
8/1/86
Objectives 5.1,5.2, & 5.3 have been combined into a total teacher assistance and support
model. They are addressed simultaneously in Year Three.
5.1.19 Document all start-up
and maintenance costs
5.1.20 Disseminate project at
local, state, and national
levels
5.1.19 Yritten manuscripts
5.1.20 Formal presentations,
slide shows, brochures, etc.
Quintero
Striefel
Michielsn
Allred
All staff
7/1/86
7/1/86
5/1/87
6/30/87
0
0
C8/86
C8/86
C11/86
C6/87
C6/87
134
F.M.S. Project Tracking Systole And Person Loading Chart
July 1, 1984 through June 30, 1987
10/85 B = Behind Schedule
C = Completed by Date IndicatedD = Activity Discontinued
I = Activity Initiated
0 = Ongoing
M = Modified: .ctivity/Wording/Date
Objectives & Activities
5.1.21 Prepare agencies for
field test of the project
package
DCHP
- Canyonview
5.1.21.1 Contact district person-
nel, principals, and/or
program directors
- DCHP
- Canyonview
5.1.21.2 Obtain permissions
necessary
5.1.21.3 Sstablish timelines for
replication activities
5.1.21.4 Gather student baseline
assessment data
5.1.22 Distribute manual to
dissemination sites
5.1.23 Conduct field tests and
revise as indicated
DCHP
Canyon View
5.1.23.1 Conduct teacher needs
assessment
- Meeting w/DCHP Teachers
- Canyonview
5.1.23.2 Conduct inservices, as
heeded
- DCHP
- Canyonview
Documentation Respon. Initia. Comple. Status
for Monitcring Party Date Date
5.1.21 Manuals and materials
agency workshop records
5.1.22 Project manual and
materials mailed or hand
delivered to agencies
5.1.23 Field test data
164
All staff
All staff
Quintero
Striefel
Michielsn
Allred
7/15/86
7/15/86
9/1/86
6/30/87 C8/86
C/11/86
C8/86
C9/86
C8-9'36
C8/86
C9/86
8/1/86
3/15/87 C6/87
C12/86
C8/86
C10/86
C8/86
C11-21/86
135
F.M.S. Project Tracking System And Person Loading Chart
Jily 1, 1984 through June 30, 1987
10/85 8 = Behind Schedule
C = Completed by Date Indicated
D = Activity Discontinued
I = Activity Initiated
0 = Ongoing
M = Modified: Activity/Wording/Date
Objectives & Activities
5.1.23.3 Assist in procuring
assistance/materials,
as needed
5.1.23.4 Document impact in
mainstreamed setting
5.1.23.5 Collect consumer
satisfaction data
5.2 To determine the level and
type of technical assistance
and support services needed by
the regular teacher and to
provide them
Year One)
5.2.1 Select, adapt, or develop
needs assessment i deter-
mine levels of technical
assistance & support ser-
vices needed after inser-
vice.activities to ensure
successful mainstreaming
5.2.2 Operationalize evaluation
questions
5.2.3 Develop procedures to
provide follow-up technical
assistance
5.2.4 Field test needs assess-
ment and procedures
- Brooki Sexton, DCHP
- K. Rhees, Edith Bowen
- DCHP Transition Kids
Documentation Respon. Initia. Comple. Status
for Monitoring !Ely Date Date
5.2.1 Draft of prototype
needs assessment
5.2.2 Written questions
5.2.3 Draft of prototype
technical assistance
activities
5.2.4 Written field test
schedules; anecdotal
recordings; data sheets
165
C11-21/86
C6/30/87
C6/30/87
Quintero 11/15/84 1/15/85 C5/85
Striefel
Yanito
Quintero 1/15/85 2/15/85 C5/85
Striefel
Yanito
Quintero 2/15/85 3/15/85 C
Striefel
Yanito
Quintero 3/i5/85 6/30/85 C3/86
Striefel 1/86
Yanito 7/86
136
FA,S. Project Tracking System And Person Loading Chart
July 1, 1984 through June 30, 1987
10/85 8 = Behind Schedule
C = Completed by Date Indicated
0 = Activity Discontinued
I = Activity Initiated
0 = Ongoing
M = Modified: Activity/Wording/Date
Objectives & Activities Documentation
for Monitoring
5.2.5 Analyze results and incor-
porate findings into
follow-up technical
assistance activities
- Summer Workshop 198!i
Year Twoi
5.2.6 Operationalize research
questions to be answered
in group experimental
studies and follat-up
5.2.7 Train data collectors,
obtain written permission
from all participants in
study
5.2.8 Conduct experimental
test of prototype with
total population; imple-
ment experimental control
group studies
5.2.9 Modify and revise proto-
type as indicated by
field test data
5.2.10 Prepare revised draft of
needs assessment
materials
5.2.11 Revise user's guide for
seeds assessment
procedures
5.2.12 Collect follow-up data
5.2.5 Graphic and narrative
studies; revised needs
assessments and technical
assistance activities
5.2.6 Written research pro-
posal and questions
5.2.7 Training data (reli-
ability scores), written
permissions
5.2.8 Experimental test
data
5.2.9 Fin :1 draft
5.2.10 High quality mater-
ials for replication and
dissemination
5.2.11 Copy of user's guide
5.2.14 Written follow -up
data
1 gf3
Respon. Initia. Comple. Status
Party Date Date
Quintero 6/30/85 9/15185 C6/86
Striefel
Yanito
Quintero 7/1/85 8/1/85 C3/86
Striefel
Allred
Quintero 8/1/85 8/30/85 C3/86
Striefel
Allred
Quintero 9/1/85 4/1/86
Striefel
Allred
Quintero 4/1/86 6/1/86 C6/86
Striefel
Allred
Quintero 6/1/86 7/1/86 C6/86
Striefel
Allred
Quintero 6/1/86 7/1/86 C6/86
Striefel
Allred
Quintero 4/1/86 7/1/86 C6/20/87
Striefel
Allred
137
P.N.S. Project Tracking System And Person Loading Chart
July 1, 1984 through June 30, 1987
10/35 B = Behind Schedule
C le Completed by Date Inf sated
D le Activity Discontinued
I = Activity Initiated
0 = Ongoing
M = Modified: Activity/Wording/Date
Objectives & Activities Documentation Respon. Initia. Comple. Status
for Monitoring Party Date Date
5.2.13 Identify LEA and pre
schools for replication
5.2.14 Prepare procedures and
materials for integration
into total model package
5.2.15 Synthesize all needs
assessment materials and
procedures into an
exportable form which
facilitates replication
5.3 To determine the materials
and adaptive equipment needed
in the mainstream setting and
to help procure these items
Year Onef
5.3.1 Outline adaptive materials
used by mainstreamed
students
(Note: found available review)
5.3.1.1 Review literature
for pertinent information
and procedures
5.3.1.2 Interview classroom
teacoers for needs/
ideas
5.3.1.3 List materials/
equipment identified
5.2.15 Written commitments
from agencies
5.2.16 Individual procedures
and materials fully revised
and ready to integrate in
package form
5.2.17 Final model package
5.3.1 Written list of
materials
5.3.2 Identify materials which 5.3.2 Written match of
increase student success potential materials
1R7
Quintero
Striefel
Allred
Quintero
Striefel
Allred
Quintero
Striefel
Allred
Quintero
Striefel
Yanito
Quintero
Yanito
4/1/86
6/1/86
6/1/86
11/1/84
11/1/84
11/15/84
11/30/84
7/15/86
8/1/86
8/1/86
12/15/85
11/15/B4
11/30/84
12/15/84
C8/86
C8/86
C9/86
C2/85
D
D
D
138
F.A.S. Project Tracking System And Person Loading Chart
July 1, 19d4 through June 30, 1987
10185 B = Behind Schedule
C = Completed by Date Indicated
0 = Activity Discontinued
I = Activity Initiated
0 = Ongoing
M = Modified: Activity/Wording/Date
Objectives & Activities Documentation
for Monitoring
Respon. L :tie. Comple. Status
Party Date Date
5.3.2.1 Review literature
5.3.2.2 Interview classroom
teachers for needs/
ideas
5.3.2.3 List ongoing
materials equipment
identified
5.3.3 Match child's needs to
available materials
5.3.4 Identify area agencies
which may be used to
procure needed materials
and equipment
5.3.5 Procula needed materials
and equipment
5.3.6 Train regular educators
in use of equipment
5.3.7 Conduct follow-up training
as needed
5.3.3 Written match of needs Quintero
to materials Yanito
5.3.4 List of area agencies IQunitero
Yanito
5.3.5 Materials Quintero
Yanito
5.3.6 Training schedule and Quintero
records Yanito
5.3.7 Training schedules Quintero
and records Yanito
11/1/84
11/15/84
11/30/84
1/5/85
12/1/84
1/15/85
2/15/85
2/15/85
11/15/84
11/30/84
6/30/87
6/30/87
1/15/87
2/15/87
6/30/87
6/30/87
Year Twol
Follow-up study in this arla was discontinued because materials are so unique to each
child. This information is documented and communicated on the child profile.
5.3.8 Operationalize research
questions to be answered
in group experimental
studies and follow-up
5.3.9 Train data collectors,
obtain written permission
from all participants in
study
5.3.8 Written research
proposal and questions
5.3.9 Training data (reli-
ability scores), written
permissions
1 g 8
Phelps
Quintero
Striefel
Phelps
Quintero
Striefel
7/1/85
8/1/85
8/1/85
8/30/85
C4/87
C5/87
C5/87
C5/87
C6/87
D
D
D
C9/85
139
F.N.S. Project Tracking System And Person Loading Chart
July 1, 1984 through June 30, 1987
10/85 B = Behind Schedule
C = Completed by Date Indicated
D = Activity Discontinued
I = Activity Initiated
0 = Ongoing
M = Modified: Activity/Wording/Date
Objectives & Activities Documentation
for Monitoring
5.3.10 Conduct experimental
test of prototype with
total population; imple-
ment experimental control
group studies
5.3.11 Modify and revise proto-
type as indicated by
field test data
5.3.12 Prepare revised draft of
support materials/
equipment procedures
5.3.13 Revise user's guide for
support materials/
equipment procedures
5.3.14 Summarize single-subject
study results
5.3.15 Prepare group experi-
mental study results for
publication
5.3.16 Collect follov-up data
5.3.17 Identify LEA and pre-
schools for replication
- Ed Scherer
5.3.18 Prepare procedures and
materie. for integration
into total model package
5.3.10 Experimental test
data
5.3.11 Final draft
5.3.12 High quality mater-
ials for replication and
dissemination
5.3.13 Copy of user's guide
5.3.14 Written summary
available
5.3.15 Written summary
available
5.3.16 Written follow-up
data
5.3.17 Written commitments
from agencies
5.3.18 Individual procedures
and materials fully revised
and ready to integrate in
package form
Respon. Initia. Comple. Status
Party Date Date
Phelps 9/1/85 4/1/86 D
Quintero
Striefel
Phelps 4/1/86 6/1/86 D
Quintero
Striefel
Phelps L J86 7/1/86 D
Quintero
Striefel
Phelps 6/1/86 7/1/85 D
Quintero
Striefel
Phelps 6/15/86 4/1/C5 D
Quintero
Striefel
Phelps 5:15/86 4/1/86 D
Quintero
Striefel
Phelps 6/1/86 4/1/86 D
Quintero
Striefel
Phelps 4/1/86 7/15/86 C9/86
Quintero
Striefel
Phelps 6/1/86 8/1/86 C11/86
Quintero
Striefel
140
141
F.N.S. Project Tracking System And Person Loading Chart
July 1, 1984 through June 30, 1987
10/85 B = Behind Schedule
C = Completed by Date Indicated
= Activity Discontinued
I = Activity Initiated
0 = Ongoing
M = Modified: Activity/Wording/Oate
Objectives & Activities Documentation
for Monitoring
Respon. Initia. Comple. Status
Party Oate Oate
5.3.19 Synthesize all materials/
equipment and procedures
into an exportable fcrm
which facilitates
replication
5.3.19 Final model package Phelps
Quintero
Striefel
6/1/86 8/1/86 C11/86
170
142
Replication Costs
Variability of Costs
Startup costs at a replication site can vary tremendously depending on
factors such as the following:
1. The length of time a program has been in existence (e.g., Is it
just starting up or has it been in existence for several years?).
2. The skill level of the staff.
3. The level of previous knowledge and experience of staff with
mainstreaming.
4. The availability of classroom space and general preschool
materials, supplies, and equipment.
5. The specific curriculum materials available.
6. The disciplines represented on the staff.
7. The level )f motivation of the administrator and staff to
mainstream children.
8. Funds available to hire substitutes, purchase materials, duplicate
materials, or to send staff to the model demonstration site or for
staff from the model demonstration site to come to the replication
site.
Program Assumptions
Due to the aforementioned variables, no attempt will be made to provide
an exact startup cost for all possible settings. Rather, an outline will
be provided of the factors to be considered in replicating the model in a
program which meets the following conditions:
171
143
1. The program is relatively well established and provides services
to children who have handicaps in selfcontained classrooms (in
either a selfcontained training center or elsewhere).
2. The costs for normal operation of the program are covered by the
existing budget.
3. Staff includa the specific disciplines needed Lo meet the
individual needs of the children served.
4. Staff have minimal to moderate levels of knowledge about
mainstreaming.
5. The program meets existing state and federal health and safety
codes.
6. Some person with sufficient formal (administrator) or informal
(board or staff member or parent) power is committed to
mainstreaming children.
7. Funds are available from some source to cover both startup and
ongoing implementation costs.
8. Children without handicaps, who are of preschool age, are readily
available in the geographic area where the program is located.
StartUp Costs
Every program has ongoing costs. All costs that follow are for a 12
month year (2080 hours). Programs that operate for only 9 months per year
would have a cost about 25% lower. Startup costs are those additional
costs incurred by replicating the Functional Mainstreaming For Success (FMS)
Model. Included are costs for additional:
172
144
1. Classrooms
2. Staff
3. Materials
4. Substitutes
5. Travel
6. Communication (telephone and postage)
7. Trainer Time
Classrooms. Prior to implLmenting the FMS Model, each selfcontained
preschool class at the model demonstration site served 12 children with
handicaps at any one time. However, since the program for any child was
only 2 1/2 hours long per day, one group of 12 children could be served in
the morning, and a second group of 12 in the afternoon. Thus, two teachers
in two classrooms were serving a total of 48 children per day. When the
model was implemented, so that some children were served in total reverse
mainstream classes and some in partial reverse mainstream classes,
additional classroom space was required. Through experience, the FMS
Project arrived at an optimal class size of 16 children (half with and half
without handicaps) for total reverse mainstreaming. Three classrooms were
now necessary for serving 24 children who had handicaps; whereas before only
two classrooms were necessary.
The partial reverse mainstream classrooms could accommodate more
children because the children without handicaps were in the classroom only
2-3 hours per week (e.g., 9 am to 10 am, Monday, Wednesday, and Friday). No
change in the number of classrooms was necessitated by partial reverse
mainstreaming.
173
145
The cost of the program to rent an additional classroom in another
location was $560 per quarter or $2240 per year. This cost included all
normal preschool supplies and materials, maintenance, heat, electricity,
etc. The specific classroom was located in a regular preschool for "normal"
children. The Education Unit at the DCHP also rented space in community
schools for either $500 per year or for no cost. The cost, if any, for
additional classrooms at a replication site will depend on the location of
the progam and space available. Total classroom cost = 0 to
$2240/year per classroom.
Staff. The additional cost for staff consisted of:
1. One additional halftime teacher for each two selfcontained
classes that became total reverse mainstream classes. Choices
exist in terms of the level of experience of the teacher, whether
certified or not, and nalary costs for hiring teachers in a
specific geographic area. At the model demonstration site, the
cost differed as follows:
a. A certified teacher with 2-3 years
experience, Halftime salary plus
31.5% benefits = $13202.00
b. An associate teacher (noncertified)
with 1 year of experience. Halftime
salary plus 16% benefits = $ 7285.00
2. One additional aide (3 hours) for each halfday class
($4.25/hour X 3 hrs/day X 200 days) to meet State of
Utah Guidelines. Salary plus 16% benefits = $ 2958.00
174
146
Note that salaries for aides vary from program to
program and benefits may or may not be paid for aides.
Also, it is important to realize that by having parents
)f children who are not handicapped pay tuition, one
can offset some costs (e.g., 200 days X $3/child/day X
8 children = $4800) or 200 X $2 X 8 = $3200).
3. One additional aide (plus one as discussed in Item 2
above) for each newly created class. Salary plus
benefits = $ 2958.00
4. Total Reverse Mainstreaming (TRMS) class requires 1 hour less
service time per week from related staff. This could differ due
to differences in individual child needs. Average salary and
benefits per hour equals $14.54 X 40 weeks = $ 582.00
This difference is not significant.
5. Volunteers (students, parents, etc.) the TRMS class
requires 14 hours less volunteer time per week. Note
this is almost identical to the time gained by having
an extra aide for 15 hours a week. The difference in
having an aide vs. volunteers is that one person (aide)
is present every half hour; whereas with volunteers,
the number present from halfhour to halfhour varies
from none to four or five. Volunteer time could be
computed at the same rate as an aide ($4.25 X14 X 40
+ 16% benefits) = $ 2761.00
The actual change in staffing if one equates aides
and volunteers (some programs will use both, some
175
only one), and if one considers an hour a week
difference in the time of related staff insigni
ficant, is the additional cost of 1/2 FTE teacher
for each 24 children placed in total reverse
mainstreaming. For a cost of
Materials. Additional materials needed per class for
mainstreaming (total or partial reverse) are:
1. One FMS mainstreaming manual per teacher
2. Child materials most of these can be dupli
cated from the manual, so costs are for
duplication. A few items are commerically
available. If not already used in the school,
these would need to be purchased commerically.
a. MESAPK 6 pages/child with handicaps
b. CEO 4 pages/child with handicaps
c. Stress Profile 2 pages/chile - -- - - --
d. Weekly Lesson Plans 5 pages/week/class
(40 weeks)
e. (6 X 8 + 4 X 8 + 2 X 8 + 200 X 10 cents/page) =
147
$13202.00
$ 15.00
$29.60/class
f. Battelles Developmental Inventory Profile
($1.00/each) =
g. Brigance Inventory of Early Development
($1.50/each) =
1.76
$ 29.60
$ 8.00
$ 13.60
148
h. Developmental Program for Infants and
Young Children ($1.70 each) = $ 13.60
It is assumed that other assessment instruments
would be part of the ongoing program. In fact,
items 1, g, and h would be common in some programs.
The Slossen Intelligence Test was used to
screen children who were enrolling who were not
handicapped to assure that this was ^..ue.
3. Teacher materials can also be duplicated from the
FMS Mainstreaming Manual.
a. 1 MESAPK (no cost since already available for
each child)
b. General Teacher Needs Assessment 6 pages X
10 cents = $ .60
The rest of the information teachers need will be
provided via training and the FMS Manual.
4. Admirf.strator Materials
a. One FMS Manual $ 15.00
b. Direotory or Local Training Resources
13 pages X 10 cents $ 1.30
5. Parents
a. Facts About Mainstreaming Brochure
4 pages/parent 16 X 4 X 10 cents $ 6.40
177
Substitutes. Whenever a teacher is being trained in main
streaming (5 days at Model Demonstration Site and 2 days
at replication site), a substitute teacher will be needed.
The costs vary. At the model demonstration site, the cost
for substitutes is $35/day/teacher. (35 X 7 = $245) X 1
(or whatever the number of teachers being trained is)
Travel. The cost for travel will vary, depending on the
distance the replication site is located from the model
demonstration site. Travel costs will include those for
staff from the model demonstration site being at the
replication site for four days across two visits and
those for replication site staff to spend five days
at the model demonstration site. Sample costs for
someone traveling 60 miles each way and going home each
day (120/day X 9 trips X 20.5 cents/mile per vehicle
= $221).
Sample costs for going from the model demonstration
site in Logan, Utah to Missolla, Montana and vise versa
follow. Airfare $418, mileage from Logan to Salt Lake
City airport and return (166 X 20.5 = $34), airport
parking $3/day, car rental $40/day, and per diem at
$75/day. Trip 1: Two staff visiting replication site,
2 people X 2 days = $418 X 2 = $836 + 34 + 6 + 80 +
75 X 4 = 300 = $1256. Trip 2: One staff member from
replication site visiting model site, 1 person X 5 days
178
149
$ 245.00
$ 221.00
= $418 + 34 + 15 + 200 + 375 = $1042 (each additiorll
person would cost $793). Trip 3: One staff member from
model site visiting replication site for 2 days,
1 person X 2 days = $418 + 34 + 6 + 80 + 150 = $688.
$1256 + 1042 + 688 = $2986 for training. The first
person and $793 extra foi each additional person.
Cost efficiency would occur, e.g., by training
5 people (793 X 4 + 2986 = $6158 - 5 = $1232/peraon), or
10 people (793 X 9 + 2986 = 10123 - 10 = $1012'person
Communication. The cost estimate for telephone communi-
cation is:
1. Three calls to set up first visit and finalize details
2. Two calls to set up second visit (5-day training)
3. -ne call per week for first four weeks and one per
month for next two months (6 calls)
4. Two calls I set up third visit
5. Total 13 calls X $5
The cost for postage should b3 fairly minimal,
since most materials will be distributed during
face-to-face contacts. One request for feedback and
one feedback letter per month for six months
(12 X 22 C = $2.64) plus envelops, etc.
179
Trainer Time. The cost for trainer time during the
development of the model was taken care of by the FMS
Project, since project staff conducted the training.
With the termination of the project, it is anticipated
that trainer costs will be $150/day, 4 trainer days
(2 trainers) for trip 1, 5 for trip 2 (for up to 20
staff), 2 for trip 3, and 1 preparation day and 1 day
for various setup and followup activities (13 X $150
= $1950).
151
$ 1950.00
Summary of StartUp Costs For Total Reverse Mainstream
ing. The unit we have chosen for replicating the FMS
Model would include 24 children who have handicaps being
integrated with 24 children without handicaps into three
classes, but with the already existing fulltime teacher
and an additional halftime teacher. Let me present
several cost options:
Option 1
a. Teacher (additional certified 1/2 time) $13202.00
b. Additional aides 4 ($2958 X 4) = $11832.00
c. Substitutes (2 X $245) $ 490.00
d. Travel Local $ 221.00
e. Communication ($65 + 3 X 2) $ 71.00
f. Materials
1. 3 manuals 2 teachers & administrators
= $45
180
152
2. Other child materials $63.20/class = $189.60
3. Other teacher materials .60 X 2 = $1.20
4. Other administrator materials = $1.30
5. Parent materials (640 X 3 = 19.20 $ 256.30
Subtotal $26072.30
g. Trainer Time $ 1950.00
Subtotal $28022.30
h. Subtotal less
1. Parent fees for children without handi
caps (4800 X 3 = 14400) $14400.00
2. Reduced time of related staff
(582 X 3 = 1746) $ 1746.00
Total Cost = $11876.30
Cost Per Child = $ 494.85
Lion 1
Option 2 includes the same costs as Option 1, except
for using noncertified teacher as the additional
teacher ($11876.30 (13202 7285) = $5959.30
Total Cost =
Cost Per Child =
Option 3
This option is the same as Option 1, except that the
outofstate travel is o:ticulated (11876.30 (2981 +
793 221) =
Total Cost =
Cost Per Child =
181
$ 5959.30
$ 248.30
$15429.30
$15429.10
$ 642.89
Option 4
This option is the same as Option 2, except that
outofstate travel is calculated (5959.30 + 3553
= 9512.30)
Total Cost
Cost Per Child =
The startup costs per child could be reduced even
more by training a larger number of teachers, by
having the additional 1/2 time teacher work full
time serving a second class or by using volunteu.s
in place of the aides. We recommend regular aides
for stability from daytoday and yeartoyear.
153
$ 9512.30
$ 396.35
Maintenance Costs. Maintenance costs include the
costs for maintaining the program after the first
year. Staffing costs remain the same; communication
cost, travel costs, substitute cots, training
manual costs, and trainer time costs are eliminated.
The four options are presented below:
Option 1
a. Teacher $13202.00
b. Aides $11832.00
c. Materials t211112.
d. Subtotal $25246.30
e. Subtotal less
1. Parent fees $14400.00
182
154
2. Reduced time for related staff $ 1746.00
Total Cost $ 9100.30
Cost Per Child $ 379.18
Option 2
Using a noncertified teacher ($9100-5917)
Total Cost $ 3183.30
Cost Per Child $ 132.64
Options 3 and 4 are irrelevant since travel ^,sts
were eliminated.
Partial Reverse Mainstreaming Costs
The startup and maintenance costs for partial reverse mainstreaming
are considerably less than for total reverse mainstreaming. The primary
reason for this is that additional staff are not needed. The figures below
are again for 24 children in 2 classes, but taught by 1 teacher.
StartUp Costs. Startup costs include:
a. Substitutes $245/teacher
b. Travel $221 if local or $2981 if outofstate
c. Materials $171.10 (includes 2 manuals, materials
for 2 classes, 1 teacher competencies, 1 resource
manual for administrator, and parent brochures
for 2 classes)
d. Trainer Time $1950
183
e. Communication - $68
Option 1
tion 2
Subtotal $2655/5415.10
Total Cost
Cost Per Child
Total Cost
Cost Per Child
184
155
$ 2655.10
$ 110.63
$ 5415.10
$ 225.62
156
REFERENCES
Bellamy, T. (1986). OSER Priority Letter. Office of Special Education &
Rehabilitative Servcices, Washington, D.C.
Borg, W., & Gall, M. (1979). Educational research (3rd ed.). New York:
Longman Publishing Co,
Brown, L., Ford, A., Nisbet, J., Sweet, M., Donnellan, A., & Gruenewald, L.
(1983). Opportunities available when severely handicapped students
attend chronological age appropriate regular schools. Journal of the
Association for the Severely Handicap...21g, I, 16-24.
Brown, L., Branston, M. B., Hamre-Nietupski, S., Pumpian, I., Certo, N. &
Gruenewald, L. (1979). A strategy for developing chronological age
appropriate and functional curricular content for severely handicapped
adolescents and young adults. Journal of Special Education, 13, 81-90.
Congressional Record (1986). Education of the Handicapped Act Amendments of
1986, 59th Congress, Report 99-860.
Curry O'Connell, J. (1986, Spring). Managing small group instruction in an
integrated preschool setting. Teaching Exceptional Children. 166-172.
DeWulf, M., & Biery, T., & Stowitschek, J. J. (1987). Modifying preschool
teaching behavior through telecommunications and graphic feedback.
Unpublished manuscript. Logan, UT: Utah State University.
Donder, J,, & York, R. (198)4). Integration of students with severe
hand'.:ncs. In N. Certo, N. Haring, & R. York (Eds.), Integration of
Severely Handicapped Students. Baltimore: Brookes Publishing Co,
185
157
Findlay, J., Miller, P., Pegram, A., Richey, L., Sanford, A., & Semrau, B.
(1976). A planning guide the Preschool Curriculum: The child, the
process, the day. Chapel Hill, N.C.: Chapel Hill TrainingOutreah
Project.
Greer, J. G. (1982). Strategie$ for helping severely and multiple
handicapped citizens. Baltimore, MD: University Park Press.
Gresham, F. M. (1981). Misguided mainstreaming: The case for social
skills training with handicapped children. Exceptional Children,49(4),
331-338.
Guralnick, M. J. (1983). Fundamental issues in preschool mainstreaming.
In J. Anderson, & T. Black (Eds.), Mainstreaming in early education
(pp. ). Chapel Hill, NC: Technical Assistance Development
System.
Nash, C. E., & Boileau, J. L. (1980). The teacher's guide to mainstreaming:
A Handbook for regular classroom teachers.
Rule, S., Killoran, J., Stowitschek, J., Innocenti, M., Striefel, S., &
Boswell, C. (1985). Training and support for mainstream day care
staff. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 1, 141-154.
Stainback, W., & Stainback, S. (1983). A review of research on the
educability of profoundly retarded persons. Education and Training of
the Mentally Retarded, 18, 90-100.
Stokes, T. F., & Baer, D. M. (1977, Summer). An implicit technology of
generalization. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 10, 349-369.
Striefel, S., & Killoran J. (1984). Grouping hanuicapped and nonhandicapped
students in mainstream set'.. igs. (HCEEP Grant No. G008401757). Logan,
UT: Utah State University.
1R6
158
Striefel. S., & Killoran J. (1984a). Research and validation_ofprocedures
aid materials for enhancing mainstreaming. (OSERS Grant No.
G008430088). Logan, Ut: State University.
Striefel, S., and Killoran, J. (1984b). Grouping handicapped and
=handicapped children in mainstream settings, (HCEEP Grant No.
G008401757). Logan, UT: Utah State University.
Teaching Research Assoc.ates. (1984). Entrans Transition Skills
Assessment. Monmoc::', OR.
Weisenstein, G. R., & Pelz, R. (1986). Administratc.-Is desk reference on
special education. Rockville, MD: Aspen.
Winderstrom, A. (1982). Mainstreaming Preschoolers: Should we or shouldn't
we? Childhood Education, 58, 172-174.
Zigmond, N. & Sansone, J. (1981). What we know about mainstreaming from
experience. In P. Bates (Ed.), Mainstreaming: Our Current Knowledge
Base (pp. 97-111). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National
Support Systems Project.
187
159
APPENDICES
Appendix A
Range and Mean Chronological Age and Range, and Mean Mental Age for thePartial and Total Mainstreaming and Control Groups
Appendix B
The FMS Social Interaction Observation System
Appendix C
Data for the TwoFactor Repeated Measure kmalysis of Variance, FisherPLSD and Scheffe FTest Across Groups, Quarters, and Tests Used
Appendix D
Summary of Parent Satisfaction Data to Open Ended Questions
Appendix E
Summary of Participant Satisfaction with WeekLong Workshop
1R8
Appendix A
Range and mean mental and chronological ages for the partial andtotal mainstraaming and control groups
PRM
TRM
Control
Mental Age (months)A, ranges
Chronological Age (months)R , ranges
19.7 39.7(0- 38) (26 - 58)30.13 45.42
(12 - 56) (28 - 58)48.33 48.33
(31 - 66) (34 - 60)
FIRM = Partial Reverse Mainstreamed Class
TRM = Total Reverse Mainstreamed Class
189
160
161
APPENDIX B - THE FMS SOCIAL INTERACTION OBSERVATION SYSTEM
Social Interaction Coding System
Functional Mainstreaming for Success Project
Draft Date: 2/18/86
Purpose:
The purpose of this social interaction coding system is to identify
reciprocal social interactions and cooperativc play, between children
with and without handicaps.
The Coding System: An example of four I0-seem:$:1 intervals making up aone-minute interval.
INITITATION(P) S H N
RECIPROCATION(P) S H N
INITIATION INITIATION(P) S H N (P) S H N
RECIPROCATION(P) S H N
RECIPROCATION(P) S H N
COOP. PLAY COOP. PLAY COOP.. PLAYC C C
2-NEG. BEH. NEG. BEH. NEG. BEH.
S H N 3 H N S H
INITIATION(P) S H N
RECIPROCATION(P) S H N
COOP. PLAYC
NEG. BEH.S H N
Definitions of Target Behaviors:
SOCIAL BEHAVIOR. A directed vocalization and/or a motor gesture made to
another child.
A) Directed Vocalization. There is a vocalization directed to
another child. The Lrst child calls the second child by name, or
clearly indicates by gesture that the vocalization is directed to the
second child (e.g., establishes eye contact). Interae.ions with
190
Ocx
.
cic;
sc.\
1.0
mm
4°3
'\1.
5 m
m, '
"-0
2.0
mm
IIII
IA
FE
FM
3
1111
1-11
1110
Fr:
nr.s
E.r
.rr
Fr
frti
15. m
aF,
Es
imts
g
.:ZI.
IL`k
",=
=1=
4,)
A8C
DE
FG
HIJ
KLM
NO
PQ
RS
TU
VW
XY
2ab
cdef
ghijk
lmno
pqrs
tuvw
xyz1
2345
6789
0
AB
CD
EF
GH
IJK
LMN
OP
QR
ST
UV
WX
YZ
-
abcd
efgh
2345
6789
0ijk
lmno
pqrs
tuvw
xyz
1
162
SOCIAL BEHAVIOR (con'd)
classroom teachers are not recorded.
B) Motor Gesture. There is a movement that causes a child's head,
arms, or feet to come into direct contact with the body of another
child; there is waving or extending of a child's arms toward another
child; one child hands an object to another child, or adds an object to
'a structure that received attention from another child earlier in the
interval; one child smiles directly at another child.
SOCIAL INITIATION. The first social behavior exhibited either by the
targeted child, or by another child to the targeted child during a
specific interval. The social behavior must be directed to a specific
child -r group of children.
SOCIAL RECIPROCATION. A response made within five seconds by a second
child to the initiation made by the first child. The return interaction
must be directed specifically to the child who made the initiation. If
no response to this child is seen within five seconds, reciprocation is
not marked.
Alternatively, reciprocations may be acts of compliance. For
example, if one child says, "Put the block over there", and another
child complies within five seconds, reciprocation is coded.
In this case reciprocation is coded even if there is an absence of a
vocalization or motor gesture directed specifically to the initiating
child.
191
163
COOPERATIVE PLAY. Some reciprocal social interactions may be
additionally characterized as cooperative play. Cooperative play is
marked only if a discrete initiation and reciprocation are observed in
an interval. The reciprocal interaction may then be coded as
cooperative play if the interaction additionally included the following:
A) Activity involving a common movable object, or objects (e.g.,
both children add blocks to the same structure).
B) Activity involving an exchange of objects.
C) "Unified" or "organized" activity involving common movements or
gestures or common vocalizations (e.g., children crawline on ground and
roaring like lions, a "game").
D) Shared-play activity identified as such through verbal approach
and response between children (e.g., one child says: "Let's build a
house." The other c'-'1d says: "O.K."; or starts building.
G) The targeted child and another child move together from one area
to another following an initiation by another child to do so.
NEGATIVE BEHAVIOR. An initiation or reciprocation consists of an
aggressive verbalization (e.g., threatens, calls another-child names, or
vocalizes a refusal to play with others, eg. "No, go away!"), or makes
an aggressive act (e.g., hits, pinches, bites, exhibits "non-playing"
pushing or pulling, grabs objects without permission, destroys the
construction of another child, or indicates by gesture a refusal to play
with others, eg. pushes others away).
If an initiation or reciprocation consists of negative behavior,
cooperative play is not recorded, even if other cooperative play is seen
192
durilig the interval.
164
PROMPT. A teacher or classroom worker proposes a social exchange
between the subject child and other children, or gives attention to
ongoing social behavior between the children. If there is no ongoing
social behavior and the classroom worker attempts to stimulate such
behavior on the part of an interacting child, then a prompt for an
initiation is scored. If one of the interacting children has already
exhibited social behavior in the current interval, and the classroom
worker gives attention to the ongoing interaction, then a prompt for a
reciprocation is scored. Social behaviors emitted in intervals
following the "prompted interval" are NOT marked as prompted.
Observation Procedure:
Each targeted child is observed for 12 10second intervals, with five
seconds for recording at the end of each interval. This means the child
is observed for a total of three minutes.
As each new interval begins, note the first social behavior
exhibited. If social behavior is seen, watch to see if iracting
parties reciprocate within five seconds. Note if the children were
additionally engaged in activities defined as cooperative play. Record
Ishich party made an initiation, and which party made a reciprocation.
Record if prompts were given. Record if cooperative play was also
seen. If an initiation and/or a reciprocation consists of negative
behavior, identify the parties engaged in this activity.
193
165
This product was developed by the
Functional Mainstreaming for Success (FMS) Project
This publication was supported by Grant No. G008401757, from the HandicappedChildren's Early Education Program of the U. S. Department of Education:However, the opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect theposition of the U. S. Department of Education and no official endorsement bythem should be inferred.
This product is for limited dissemination
Please do not reproduce without consent of the authors
For more information, contact:
Sebastian Striefel, Ph.D.
John Killoran, M.Ed.
Maria Quintero
Utah State UniversityDevelopmental Center for Handicapped Persons
UMC 6800Logan, UT 84322-6800
(801) 750-1980
194
APPENDIX C (see title below) Battelle (BDI)
Anova table for a 2-factor repeated measures Anova.
Source: df: Sum of Squares: Mean Square: F-test: P value:Battelle (A) 2 41648.109 20824.055 74.648 1.0E-4subjects w. groups 56 15622.048 278.965Repeated Measure (B) 3 2300.737 766.912 10.075 1.0E-4AB 6 1112.097 185.349 2.435 .0278B x subjects w. groups 168 12788.416 76.122
There were no missing cells found. 9 cases,deleted with missing values.
The AB Incidence table
Repeated Mea... Septembe... December... March Sc... May Scor... Totals:
a)
PRM18
19
18
21.77818
19.611
18
21.91772
20.5767511co
TRM21
28.66721
35.88121
39.85721
44.23884
37.161
Control20
49.2520
55.3520
54.720
55.5580
53.713
Totals:59
32.69559
38.17859
38.71259
41.263236
37.712
One Factor ANOVA X1: Battelle Y1: September Scores
Analysis of Variance Table
Sum Sauares: Mean Square: F-test:
Between groups 2 8866.185 4433.093 33.274
WithLi groups 61 8127.049 133.23 _p = 1.0000E-4
Total 63 16993.234
Model II estimate of between component variance = 2149.931
Dev.: Std. Error:
166
_.__.... ___....
PRM 18 19 10.852 2.558
TRM 24 30.458 12.968 2.647
Control 22 48.364 10.367 2.21
wlean Diff.: cheffe F -test:
PRM vs. TRM -11.458 5.068'
PRM vs. Control -29.364 32.035*
TRM vs. Control -17.905 13.81'
' Significant at 95%
DATA FOR THE TWO-FACTOR REPEATED MEASURE ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE, FISHER PLSD AND SHEFFE
F-TEST ACROSS CROUPS, QUARTERS, AND TESTI 535D
Source:
One Factor ANOVA X1: Battelle Y2: December Scores
DF:
Analysis of Variance Table
Sum Squares: Mean Souare: F-test:Between groups 2 11108.316 5554.158 42.406Within groups 61 7989.555 130.976 p = 1.0000E -4_Total 63 19097.871
Model II estimate of between component variance = 2711.591
Group: Count: Mean: Std. Dev.: Std. Error:
167
PRM 18 21.778 11.83 2.788
TRM 24 36.896 12.758 2.604
Control 22 55.045 9.429 2.01
Source:
Comparison: Mean Diff.: Sci,effe F-test:
PRM vs. TRM -15.118 5 974*
PRM vs. Control -33.268 41.827*
TRM vs. Control -18.15 14.434*
Significant at 95%
One Factor ANOVA X1: Battelle Ya:. March Scores
DF:
Analysis of Variance Table
Sum Souaies: Mean &ware: F-test:Between groups 2 12281.852 6140.926 48.393Within groups 60 7613.862 126.898 D = 1.0000E-4Total 62 19895.714
Model II estimate of between component variance = 3007.014
Group: Count: Mean: Std. Dev.: Ski. Error:
PRM 22 20.636 9.53 2.032
TRM 21 39.857 110.91 12.381
Control 20 54.7 i 13.231 12.959
Cornoarison:
PRivl vs. TRM
PRM vs. Control
Mean Diff
- 19.221 15.64"
1-34.064 147.896"
*TRM vs. Control 1-14.843 18.392*
Significant at 95%
196
Source:
One Factor ANOVA XI: battelie Y4: May Scores
DF:
Analysis of Variance Table
Su
Between arouos I2 110126.856 15063.428 37.744
Within arouos 159 17914.873 1134.15 D = 1.0000E-=
Total 161 118041.73
Iv ode: II estimate of between component variance = 2464.639
Group: Count: Mean: Std. Dee'.: Std. Error:
168
PRM 19 23.763 12.148 2.787
TRM 23 44.478 10.9 2.273
Control 20 55.55 11.799 2.638
iff Scheffe F-test:.............vs. TRM -20.715
-31.787
116.641'
36.694*PRM vs. Control-PRM
TRM vs. Control -11.072 4.888*
Significant at 95%
Battelle (BDI)Row Means
Comparisons' Schefte F-Test .
PRM vs. TRM 38.23*
PRM vs. Control 149.25*
TRM vs. Control 40.29*
Column Means
Comparisons Scheffe F-Test
September vs. December 11.65'
December vs. March .11
March vs. May 2.52
September vs. May28.45'
'Significant at 95%
197
Source:
DPIYC
Anova tablo for a 2-factor repeated measures Anova.
df: Sum of Squares: Mean Square: F-test: P value:
DPIYC (A) 2 34480.114 17240.057 88.487 1.0E-4
subjects w. groups 55 10715.771 194.832Repeated Measure (B) 2 1334.218 667.109 8.119 5.0E-4
AB 4 840.909 210.227 2.559 .0426
B x subjects w. groups 110 9038.206 82.166
Source:
There were no missing cells found. 11 cases deleted with missing values.
The AB Incidence table
Repeated Mea... DecScores MarchSco... MayScores Totals:
0>-Er.o
PRM18
31.33318
29.77818
32.77854
31.266
TRM23
46.04323
54.696
23
58.69669
53.145
Control17
64.82417
67.23517
69.29451
67.118
Totals:58
46.983
58
50.638
58
53.759174
50.46
One Factor ANOVA X1: DPIYC : DecScores
DF:
Analysis of Variance Table
Sum Sauares: -
Between groups 2 9839.556 4919.778 28.347Within groups 55 9545.427
19384.983173.553 _p = 1.0000E-4
Total 57
Mode: II estimate of between component variance = 2373.112
Group: Count:
169
. .
PRM 18 31.333 17.225 4.06
TRM 23 46.043 14.044 2.928
Control 17 64.824 3.187 .773
Comparison: Mean Diff.: Scheffe F-test:
PRM vs. TRM -14.71 6.295'
PRM vs. Control -33.49 I 28.25*
TRM vs. Control -18.78 1 9.932*
Significant at 95%
19
One Factor ANOVA Xi : DPIYC Y2: IViarchScores4*
Analysis of Variance Table
Mean Sauare:
16594.219
194.921
1
Source: DF: Sum Sauares:I Between proms 12 113188.438I Within arouos 165 16169.8421 Total 167 119358.279
Model II estimate of between component variance = 3249.649
Group: Cou
F-test:169.471
10 = 1.0000E-4
1
170
....... oto. error:PRM 23 131.87 10.725 2.236
TRM 23 154.696 10.589 2.208
Control 22 165.273 7.472 1.593
Source:
Comparison: Mean Diff.: Scheffe F-test:
PRM vs. TRM -22.826
PRM vs. Control -33.403 66.088'
TRM vs. Control -10.577 6.626'
Significant at 95%
One Factor ANOVA X1: DPIYC Y3: MayScores
DF:
Analysis of Variance Table
Sum Sauares: Mean Sauare: F-test:
Between arouos 12 11816.145 5908.072 51.591
Within arouos 62 7100.101 114.518 o = 1.0000E-4
Total __164 18916.246
Model II estimate of between component variance = 2896.777
v Std. Error:,,./.... ...-....
PRM 20 34.5 13.485 3.015
TRM 24 58.208 11.264 2.299
Control 21 67.429 6.03 1.316
Scheffe F-test:%.,,uilliJaH.v... ......... _ .
PRM vs. TRM -23.708 126.772"
PRM vs. Control -32.929 148.496"
TRM vs. Control -9.22 14.157*
Significant at 95%
199
171
DPIYC
Row MeansComparisons Scheffe FTest
PRM vs. TRM 74.24'
PRM vs. Control 172.71'
TRM vs. Control 29.40
Column MeansComparisons'':' .' Scheffe FTest
December vs. March 4.71
March vs. flay 3.44
December vs. May 16.2'
Significant at 95%
Source:
PAPG/Social
Anova table for a 2-factor repeated measures Anova.
df: Sum of Squares: Mean Square: F-test: P value:PAPG/Soc. (A) 2 336512.745 1 b3256.372 29.251 1.0E-4subjects w. groups 44 253093.38 5752.122Repeated Measure (B) 3 34575.036 11525.012 6.556 4.0E-4AB 6 33126.339 5521.057 3.141 .0065B x subjects w. groups 132 232041.312 1757.889
There were no missing cells found. 24 cases deleted with missing values.
The AB Incidence table
Repeated Mea... Sept. Sco... Dec. Scar... March Sc... May Scor... Totals:
,;6
cn
a.a.
PRM16
156.78116
128.812. 16
136.93816
151.68864
143.555
TRM16
185.37516
168.31216
236.93816
231.56264
205.547
Control15
236.26715
241.06715
257.53315
252.53360
246.85
Totals:47
191.88347
178.08547
209.46847
211.064188
197.625
Source:
One Factor ANOVA X1: PAPG/Soc. Y1: Sept. Scores
DF:
Analysis of Variance Table
Sum Sauaros: Mean Sauare: F-test:Between groups 2 49940.439 24970.219 6.874Within groups 44 159823.168 3632.345 13 = .0025Total 46 209763.606
Model II estimate of between component variance = 10668.937
Group: Count: Mean: Std. Dev.: Std. Error:
172
PRM 16 156.781 77.189 19.297
TRM 16 185.375 65.663 16.416
Control 15 236.267 20.313 5.245
Comparison: Mean Dill.: Scheffe F-test:
PRM vs. TRM -28.594 .9
PRM vs. Control -79.485 6.733'
TRM vs. Control -50.892 2.76
Significant at 95%
201
One Factor ANOVA X1: PAPG/Scl Y2: Dec. Scores
Source: OF:
Analysis of Variance Table
Sum Sauares: Mean Sauare: F-test:Between arouos 2 100142.914Within rouos 61 209699.446
50071.4573437.696
14.565
1.0000E-4Total 63 309842.359
Model II estimate of between component variance = 23316.88
Grouo: Count: Mean: Std. Dev.: Std. Error:
173
PRM 18 138.778 80.658 19.011
TRM 26 195.154 59.603 11.683
Contra! 20 241.55 23.271 5.203
Source:
Comparison: Mean Diff.: Scheffe F-test:PRM vs. TRM -56.376 4.917'
PRM vs. Control -102.772 14.554'
TRM vs. Control -46.396 3.539'
Significant at 95%
Ore Factor ANOVA X1: PAPG/Soc. Y3: March Scores
DF:
Analysis of Variance Table
Sum Sauares: Mean Sauare: F-testBetween groups 2 136627.184 68313.592 31.507Within roLos 64 138762.935 2168.171 0 1.0000E-4Total 66 275390.119
Model II estimate of between component variance = 33072..11
Group: Count: Mean: Std. Dev.: Std. Error:PRM 22 146.773 172.09 15.37
TRM 24 233.917 129.704 16.063
Control 21 250.81 121.602 1 J..714
Diff.: F -test:
PRM vs. TRM -87.1,14 120.101'
PRM vs. Control -104.037 (26.818'
TRM vs. Control - 16.393 1.737
Significant at 95%
21)2
Source:
One Factor ANOVA X1: PAPG/Soc. Y4: May Scores
DF:
Analysis of Variance Table
Sum Squares: Mean Square: F-test:ee t w e e n groups 2 84874.945 42437.472 28.811
Within groups 66 97215.693 1472.965 o = 1.0000E-41 otal 68 182090.638
Model II estimate of between component variance = 20482.254
Group: Count: Mean: Std. Dev.: Std. Error:
174
PRM 20 162.85 61.414 13.733
TRM 28 233.571 25.916 4.898
Control 21 246.714 , 19.259 4.203
Comparison: Mean Diff.: c effe F - test
PRM vs. TRM -70.721 19.807*
PRM vs. Control -83.864 24.457*
TRM vs. Control -13.143 .704
Significant at 95%
PAPG/SocialRow Means
,Comparisonw '' Scheffe F-Test .
PRM vs. TRM 21.38'
PRM vs. Control 57.44'
TRM vs. Control 9.18'
Column Means
Comparisons : Scheffe F-Test
September vs. December 2.54
December vs. March 13.16'
March vs. May .03
September vs. May 4.92
'Significant at 951:
203
PAPG/Social Language
Anova table for a 2-factor repeated measures slova.
f: Sum of Squares: Mean Square: F-test: P value:PAPG/Soc.Lang. (A) 2 224080.042 112040.021 44.491 1.0E-4subjects w. groups 43 108284.638 2518.247Repeated Measure (B) 3 25912.712 8637.571 10.68 1.0E-4AB 6 13761.451 2293.575 2.836 .0126B x subjects w. groups 129 104331.588 808.772
There were no missing cells found. 25 cases celeted with missing values.
The AB Incidence table
Repeated Mea... SFpt.Scor... Dec.Scores MarchSco... MayScores Totals:
cas_.,do
cn0-<0-
PRM15
52.93315
60.66715
63.53315
68.06760
61.3
TRM16
95.12516
90.2516
135.68816
119.81264
110.219
Control15
119.93315
155.815
162.26715
151.860
147.45
Totals:46
89.45746
101.97846
120.82646
113.37184
106.408
Source:
One Factor ANOVA X1: PAPG/Soc.Lang. Y1: Sept.Scores
OF:
Analysis of Variance Table
Sum Squares: Mean Square: F-test:Between groups 2 34455.796 17227.898 13.369Within groups 43 55411.617 1288.642 a = 1.0000E-4Total 45 89867.413
Model II estimate of between component /wience = :969.628
Group: Count: Mean: Std. Dev.: Std. Error:
176
PRM 15 52.933 25.266 16.524
TRM 16 95.125 45.471 111.368
Control._.
15 119.933 33.232 ict .58
Comparison: Mean Dill.:
PRM vs. TRM -42.1n2
Scheffe F-test:
5.247'
PRM vs. Control -67
TRM vs. Control -24.808
113.063*
11.3,19
Significant at 95%
204
Source:
One Factor ANOVA X1: PAPG/Soc.Lang. Y2: Dec.Scores
DF:
Analysis of Variance Table
Sum Squares: Mean Square: F-test:Between groups 2 75691.761 37845.881 21.913Within groups 61 105351.176 1727.068 p = 1.0000E-4Total 63 181042.938
Model II estimate of between component variance = .18059.4C6
Group: Count: Mean: Std. Dev : Std. Error:
177
PRM 18 67.222 44.98 10.602TRM 26 111.731 50.427 9.889
Control 20 156.55 19.715 4.408
Source:
Comparison: Mean Diff.: Scheffe F-test:
PRM vs. TRM -44.509 6.1'
PRM vs. Control -89.328 21.885*
TRM vs. Control -44.819 6.574*
* Sinnificant at 95%
One Factor ANOVA X1: PAPG/Soc.Lang. Y3: MarchScores
OF:
Analysis of Van..--nce Table
Sum Squares: Mean Square: F-test:Between groups 2 83416.267 41708.134 36.187Within groups 64 73764.39 1152.569 p = 1.0000E-4Total 66 157180.657
Model II estimate of between component variance = 20277.782
Group: Count: Mean: Std. Dev Std. Error:PRM 22 69.909 33.527 7.148TRM 24 136.5 39.679 8.099Control 21 152.143 26.407 5.762
uompanson: Mean Diff.: Fisher PLSD: Scheffe F-test: Dunnett t:PRM vs. TRM -66.591 20.021* 22.081* 6.645
1PRM vs. Control -82.234 20.693* 31.519* 7.94[TAM vs. Control -15.643 20.268 1.189 1.542
Significant at 95%
205
Source:
One Factor ANOVA X1: PAPG/Soc.Lang. Y4: MayScores
DF:
Analysis of Variance Table
Sum Sauares: Mean Sauare: F-test:Between groups 2 56076.403 28038.202 37.481Within groups 65 48623.714 748.057 p = 1.0000E-4Total 67 104700.118
Model 11 estimate of between component variance = 13645.072
Group: Count:
178
___ --. ...PRM 20 72.6 28.816 6.443TRM 28 119.786 31.367 5.928Control 20 146.3 18.184 4.066
Comparison: Mean Diff.: Fisher PLSD: Scheffe F-test: Dunnett t:PRM vs. TRM -47.186. 15.994' 17.362* 5.893
PRM vs. Control -73.7 17.275' 36.305' 8.521
TRM vs. Control -26.514 15.994' 5.482' 3.311
Significant at 95%
PAPG/Social Language
Row MeansComparisons. Scheffe F-Test
PRM vs. TRM 29.43
PRM vs. Contrct 88.42
TRM vs. Contrcl 17.04*
Column Means, , "Comparlions.." , Scheffe F-Test
September vs. December 4.45
December vs. March 10.10
March vs. May 1.58
September vs. May 16.26Significant at 95%
2 n 6
Source:
MESA-PK
Anova table for a 2-factor repeated measures Anova.
df: Sum of Squares: Mean Square: F-test: P value:MESA (A) 2 356740.889 178370.444 68.854 1.0E-4subjects w. groups 59 152843.696 2590.571Repeated Measure (B) 3 85872.173 28624.058 16.121 1.0E-4AB 6 12890.65 2148.442 1.21 .3032B x subjects w. groups 177 314282.426 1775.607
There were no missing cells found. 9 cases deleted with missing values.
The AB Incidence table
Repeated Mea... Sept Dec March May Totals:
PAM18 18 18 18 72
103.444 139.5 151.333 148.389 135.667coI-1-1 TRM
24 24 24 24 96M 163.667 187.708 225 223.208 199.896
Control20 20 20 20 80
213.15 232.55 240.05 238.7 231.113
Totals: 62 62 62 62 248162.145 188.177 208.468 206.484 191.319
Source:
One Factor ANOVA X1: MESA Y1: Sept
DF:
Analysis of Variance Table
Sum Squares: -
Between groups 2 112690.063 56345.032 23.375Within groups 60 144627.587 2410.46 p = 1.0000E-4Total 62 257317.651
Model II estimate of between component variance = 26967.286
Group: Count: Mean: Std. Dev.: Std. Error:
179
PRM 18 103A44 60.179 14.184
TRM 24 163.667 52.898 10.798
Control 21 211.238 30.579 6.673
Comparison: Mean Diff.: Scheffe F-test:
PRM vs. TRM - 60.222 7.738*
PRM vs. Control -107.794 23.361*
TRM vs. Control -47.571 15.258*
* Significant at 95%
207
Source:
One Factor ANOVA X1: MESA Y2: Dec
DF:
Analysis of Variance Table
Sum Squares: Mean Square: r
Between groups 2 32032.103 41016.051 14.633Within groups 61 170980.835 2802.965 p = 1.0000E-4Total 63 253012.938
Model II estimate of between component variance = 19106.543
Group: Count: Mean: Std. D v
180
PRM 18 139.5 75.566 17.811
TRM 26 187.846 51.008 10.003
Control 20 232.55 21.598 4.829
Source:
Comparison: Mean Diff.: Scheffe F-test:
PRM vs. TRM -48.346 4.435*
PRM vs. Control -93.05 14.632*
TRM vs. Control -44.704 4.03'
Significant at 95%
One Factor ANOVA X1: MESA Y3: March
Analysis of Variance Table
DF: Sum Squares: Mean Square: F-test:Between groups 2 106003.872 53001.936 47.059Within groups 65 73208.364 1126.283 D = 1.0000E-4Total 67 179212.235
Model II estimate of between component variance = 25937.827
Group: Count: Mean: Std. Dev.: Std. Error:
PRM 22 146 50.035 10.668
TRM 24 225 23.144 4.724
Control 22 235.273 19.898 4.242
Comparison: Mean Diff. Scheffe F-test:
PRM vs. TRM -79 31.802'
PRM vs. Control -89.273 38.918'
TRM vs. Control -10.273 .538
Significant at 95%
2118
Source:
One Factor ANOVA Xi: MESA Y4: May 181
DF:
Analysis of Variance Table
Sum Squares: Mean Square: F-test:Between groups 2 119404.46 59702.23 33.302Within groups 65 116529.819 1792.766 = 1.0000E-4Total 67 235924.279
Model II estimate of between component variance = 28954.732
Group: Count: Mean: Std. Dev.: Std. Error:
PRM 20 138.7 73.349 16.401
TRM 27 223.111 20.406 3.927
Control 21 238.048 13.197 2.88
Comparison:
PRM vs. TRM -84.411 p 22.332*
PRM vs. Control -99.348 28.199*
TRM vs. Control -14.937 .735
" Significant at 95%
MESA-PKRow Means
Comparisons' Scheffe F-Test
PRM vs. TRM 65.52*
PRM vs. Control 133.26'
TRM vs. Control 16.42'
Column Means/ ':)Comparisons- . ''. Scheffe F-Test
September vs. December 11.83'
December vs. March 7.18
March vs. May .068
September vs. May 34.32
'gnu can at 95%
209
Source:
Peabody Fine Motor
Anova table for a 2-factor repeated measures Anova.
df: Sum of Squares: Mean Square: F-test: P value:Peabody/Fine (A) 1 15984.022 15984.022 39.428 1.0E-4'subjects w. groups 40 16215.881 405.397Repeated Measure (B) 3 6728.491 2242.83 22.383 1.0E-4AB 3 1344.547 448.182 4.473 .0052B x subjects w. groups 120 12024.52 100.204
There were no missing cells found. 6 cases deleted with missing values.
The AB Incidence table
Repeated Mea... Sept Scar... Dec Scores March Sc... May Scar...
1829.306
Totals:72
24.529
...:
-0°oPRM
18
19.97818
24.19418
24.639
13)a. TRM24
.33.042
2439.333
2448.792
2455.792
96
44.24
Totals: 42
27.44342
32.84542
38.4442
44.44168
35.792
Source:
One Factor ANOVA X1: Peabody /Fine. Y1: Sept Scores
Analysis of Variance Table
Between rouos 1
--... ..,...,....4.....
1755.413mean ouuctie.
1755.413r -iesi:11.409
Within groups t0 6154.609 153.865 p = .0016Total 41 7910.023
Model II estimate of between component variance = 1601.548
Group:
182
____ ow. uev.: Std. terror:PRM 18 19.978 12.209 2.878TRM 24 33.042 12.546 2.561
Comoarison: Mean Diff.: Scheffe F-test:
PRM vs. TRM 1-13.064 11.409'
Significant at 95%
210
Source:
One Factor ANOVA X1: Peabody/Fine Y2: Dec Scores
DF:
Analysis of Variance Table
Sum Squares: Mean Square: F-test:Between groups 1 2368.021 2368.021 10.083Within arouos 42 9864.223 4234.862 o = .0028Total 43 12232.244
Model II estimate cf between component variance = 2133.159
Group: Count: Mean: Std. Dev.: Std. Error:
183
PRM 18 24.194 14.947 3.523TRM 26 39.115 15.577 3.055
Source:
Comparison: Mean Diff.: Scheffe F-test:PRM vs. TRM
* Significant at 95%
-14.921 [10.083*
One Factor ANOVA X1: Peabody/Fine Y3: March Scores
DF:
Analysis of Variance Table
Sum Squares: Mean Square: F-test:Between groups 1 5426.909 137.943Within qrouos 44 6293.261
15426.909
143.029 lo = 1.0000E-4Total 45 11720.17
Model II estimate of between component variance = 5283.88
Group: Count: Mean: Std. Dev.: Std. Error:PRM 22 27.048 I 2.517 2.669TRM 124 48.792 111.426 2.332
Comparison: Mean Diff.: Scheffe F -test:1PFIM vs. TRM -21.744 137.943'
Significant at 95%
Source:
One Factor ANOVA X1: Peabody/Fine
DF:
Analysis of Variance Table
Y4: May Scores
Sum Squares: Mean Square: F-test:I Between groups 1 7290.698 7290.698 42.211
Within g_roues41 7081.569 172.721 = 1.0000E-4Total 42 14372.267
_p
Model 11 estimate of between co-nponent variance = 7117.977
Group: Count: fv'tJan: Std. Dev.: Std. Error:
184
PRM 18 29.306 15.147 3.57
TRM 25 55.7 11.513 2.303
Comparison:
PRM vs. TRM
Minn Diff.:
-T26.394
Significant at 95%
Peabody /Fine Motor
Scheffe F-test:
42.211'
Row Means:Comparisons . ..., .'iScheffe . F-Test
PRM vs. TRM 39.44
Column Means,',."- 4Comparisons Scheffe F-Test
September vs. December 5.12
December vs. March 5.50
March vs. May 6.32
September vs. May 50.75'Significant at 95%
212
Peabody Gross Motor
Anova table for a 2-factor repeated measures Anova.
.am of Squares: Mean Square: F-test: P value:
185
-......P Gross (A) 1 6382.698 6382.698 29.124 1.0E-4subjects w. groups 36 7889.521
.219.153
Repeated Measure (B) 3 2645.479 881.826 9.571 1.0E-4AB 3 982.878 327.626 3.556 .0168B x subjects w. groups 108 9950.581 92.135
There were no missing cells found. 12 cases deleted with missing values.
The AB Incidence table
Repeated Mea... Sept Scor... Dec.Scores March Sc... May Scar... Totals:I-ci-0
a.
PRM17
19.82417
22.05917
23.41217
23.64768
22.235TRM
21
27.92921
30.40521
38.78621
43.95284
35.268Totals: 38
24.30338
26.67138
31.90838
34.868152
29.438
Source:
One Factor ANOVA X1: P Gross V1: Sept Scores
DF:
Analysis of Variance Table
Sum Sauares: Mean Sauare: F-test:Between groups 1 888.162 888.162 6.986Within groups 39 4958.46 127.14 p = .0118Total 40 5846.622
Model II estimate of between component variance = 761.022
Group: Count: Mean: Std. Dev.: Std. Error:PRM 17 _119.824 11.137 2.701TRM 24 29.271 11.371 2.321
Comparison:
PPM vs. TRMMean Diff.: Scheffe F-test:-9.447 6.986*
Significant at 95%
213
One Factor ANOVA X1: P Gross Y2: Dec.Scores
Analysis of Variance Table
Sum Squares: Mean Sauare: F-test:
Between groups 1 1040.581 1040.581 7.447
Within rows 42 5868.663 139.73 P = .0092
Total 43 6909.244
Group:
Model II estimate of between component variance = 900.851
Count: Mean: Std. Dev.: Std. Error:
186
PRM 18 22.167. 12.201 2.876
TRM 26 32.058 '11.555 2.266
Source:
roCom arison:
PRM vs. TRM
Mean Diff.: Scheffe F-test:
' Significant at 95%
OF:
-9.891 17.447*
Analysis of Variance Table
Sum a -T T.Mean
Between groups 1 2289.422 2289.422 27.338Within groups 46 3852.323 83.746 o = 1.0000E-4Total 47 6141.745
Model II estimate of between component variance = 2205.676
Group: Count: Mean: _ .
PRM 24 24.417 9.552 1.95
TRM 24 38.229 8.733 1.783
Comparison:
PRM vs. TRM
Mean Diff.:
Significant at 95%
Scheffe F-test:
-13.813 27.338' _i
2 1 4
Dev.: Std. Error:187
s,.........., .... ....._.,
PRM 17 23.647 10.875 2.638
TRM 21 43.952 12.243 2.672
Source:
One Factor ANOVA X1: P Gross Y4: May Scores
DF:
Analysis of Variance Table
Sum Souares: Mean Square: F-test:Between groups 1 3873.507 3873.507 28.515Within groups 36 4890.335 135.843 0 = 1.0000E-4Total 37 8763.842
Model II estimate of between component variance = 3737.665
Comparison: Mean Diff.: Scheffe F-test:PRM vs. TRM -20.305 28.515'
Significant at 95%
Peabody/Gross MotorRow Means
Comparisons Scheffe F-Test
PRM vs. TRM 29.14'
Column MeansComparisons Scheffe F-Test
September vs. December 1.15
December vs. March 5.65
March vs. May 1.81
September vs. May 23.01''Significant of 95%
Microsessions
Anova table for a 2-factor repeated measures Anova.
ayes: Mean Square: F-test: P value:--...... _.. .
PRM
Microsessions (A) 1 407.805 407.805 18.846 1.0E-4subjects *w. groups 39 843.935 21.639Ropeated Measure (B) 2 117.528 58.764 E836 .0647AB 2 272.786 136.393 6.582 .0023B x subjects w. groups 78 1616.353 20.722
Source:
There were no missing cells found. 7 cases deleted with missing values.
The AB Incidence table
Repeated Mea... Sept-Dec Dec-March- Mar-May Totals:
:ID;18 18 18 54
0ril 7.667 10.111 14.056 10.611
TRM
..,ca 23 23 23 69
7.043 7.478 6.304 6.942
Totals: 41 41 41 1237.317 8.34 9.707 8.553
One Factor ANOVA X1: Microsessions Y1: Sept-Dec
DF:
Analysis of Variance Table
Sum Sauares: Mean Sauare: F-test:Between groups 1 2.279 2.279 .077Within rows 41 1214 29.61 p = .7828Total 42 1216.279
Model II estimate of between component varianco = -27.3 31
Group: Count: Mean: Std. Dev.: Std. Error:
188
PRM 18 7.667 5.19 11.223
TRM 25 7.2 5.612 11.122
Comparison:
1PRM vs. TAM
Mean Diff.: Scheffe F-test:
.467 .077
216
One Factor ANOVA X1: Microsessions Y2: Dec-March
Analysis of Variance Table
Mean Square: F-test:Between groups 1 108.943 108.943 5.623Within rouos 43 833.057 19.373 = .0223Total 44 942
Model II estimate of between component variance = 89.569
Error:
189
ciroup:[PRM
la0U11.
22 10.591
....... -- ..
4.866 1.038
1TRM 23 7.478 3.907 .815
Source:
effi: F-test:.......... _....
LPRM vs. TRM 13.113 15.623*
' Significant at 95%
One Factor ANOVA X1: Microsessions Y3: Mar-May
DF:
Analysis of Variance Table
Sum Squares: Mean Square: F-test:Between groups 1 762.675 (762.675 48.662Within .rouos 45 705.282 1.673 = 1.0000E-4Total 46 1467.957
Model II estimate of between component variance = 747.002
Group: Count: Mean: Std. Dev.: Std. Error:PRM 21 14.333
.-^4.054 .885
TRM 26 6.231 3.881 1.761
Comparison:
PRM vs. TRM 8.103.....o..,,,,, . l,..r.l
48.662"
Significant at 95%
MicrosessionsRow Means
.Comparisons Scholia F-Test
PAM vs. TRM 18.86*
Column Means: Comparisons ''', Scheffe F-Test
Sept./Dec. vs. Dec./Mar. 1.71
Dec./Mar. vs. Mar./May 1.14
Sept./Dec. vs. Mar./May 5.65
'Significant at 95% 217
Source:
Individualized Education Plan (IEP)
Anova table for a 2-factor repeated measures Anova.
df: Sum of Squares: Mean Square: F-test: P value:1EP (A) 1 .427 .427 2.655E-3 .9592subjects w. groups 37 5948.054 160.758Repeated Measure (B) 2 1150.824 575.412 3.796 .027AB 2 735.086 367.543 2.424 .0955B x iobjacts w. groups 74 11218.12 151.596
Source:
There were no missing cells found. 6 cases deleted with missing values.
The AB Incidence table
Repeated Mea... Sept-Dec Dec-Mar Mar-May Totals:
a.w
PRM21
12.32821
17.74821
23.08563
17.72
TRM18 18 18 54
19.362 12.971 21.192 17.841
Totals:39 39 39 117
11%574 15.543 22.212 17.776
One Factor ANOVA X1: IEP Y1: Sept-Dec
DF:
Analysis of Variance Table
- .....y1 ..,, L
Between groups 1 355.896 355.896 3.119Within groups 38 4335.437 114.09 p = .0854Total 39 4691.333
Model II estimate of between component variance = 241.806
Group: Count: ea n:
190
PRM 22 13.366 111.369 2.424
TRM 18 19.362 9.765 2.302
Comparison: Mean Diff.: Scheffe F-test:PRM vs. TRM -5.996 1 3.119
I
218
Source:
One Factor ANOVA X1: IEP Y2: Dec-Mar
OF:
Analysis of Variance Table
Sum Squares: Mean Square: -tesBetween groups 1 223.392 223.392 1.394Within rouos 42 6732.074 160.287 = .2444Total 43 6955.466
Model II estimate of between component variance = 63.104
Grouo: Count: Mean: Std. Dev.: Std. Errcr:
191
21 17.748 12.336 2.692[PRM
TRM 23 13.237 12.948 2.7
Comparison:
PRM vs. TRM 4.511 11..394 1.181
Source:
One Factor ANOVA A1: IEP Y3: Mar-May
OF:
Analysis of Variance Table
Between groups 1 73.216 73.216 .364Within groups 40 8048.015 201.2 p = .5498Total 41 8121.231
Model II estimate of between component variance = -127.984
Group: Cowit:
PRM 22 22., *A
. r v ...14.843
. Y.
3.165
TRM 20 20.15 13.419 3.001
comparison:
PRM vs. TRM
Mean Diff.:
2.644
Scheffe F -test:
1.364
219
Source:
One Factor ANOVA X1: IEP Y4: Sept-May
DF:
Analysis of Variance Table
Sum Sauares: Mean Sauare: F-test:Between groups 1 371.165 371.165 1.614Within groups 36 8279.188 229.977 = .2121Total 37 8650.353
_p
Model II estimate of between component variance = 141.187
Group:
192
........... 4.01, 6./..01, 71%,J L-11%/1.
PRM 22 42.005 14.798 3.155
1 PRM 16 35.675 15.664 3.916
Comparison: Mean Diff.:
6.33
Scheffe F-test:
PRM vs. TRM
% IEP Gains CompletedRow Means
. 'Comparisons , -, ... Scheffe . F-Test
PRM vs. TRM .002
Column Means, 'f;7.':Comparisans -.' : '. Scheffe "F -Test
Sept./Dec. vs. Dec./Mar. .00012
Dec./Mar. vs. Mar./May 5.72
Sept./Dec. vs. Mar./May 5.66gnificant at 95%
220
Source:
Reciprocal Interaction
Anova table for a 2-factor repeated measures Anova.
df: Sum of Squares: Mean Square: F-test: P value:Reciprocal Interactio... 2 7094.678 3547.339 45.447 1.0E-4subjects w. groups 20 1561.077 78.054Repeated Measure (B) 2 181.524 90.762 .877 .4239AB 4 1099.372 274.843 2.655 .0468B x subjects w. groups 40 4140.209 103.505
Source:
There were no missing cells found. 7 cases deleted with missing values.
The AB Incidence table
Repeated Mea... Fall Winter Spring 1 Totals: jgc
'Es
ta..
ccc.)cc
PRM8
6.638
5.2098
6.88924
6.242
TRM9
25.5929
15.259
13.8327
18.224
Control 6
27.5536
40.0126
29.90318
32.489
Totals: 23
19.508 I
23
18.21723
15.60969
17.778
Reciprocal Interaction
One Factor ANOVA X1: Reciprocal Interactions Y1: Fall
Analysis of Variance Table
OF: Sum Squares:Between groups 2 2902.558 1451.279 19.016Within groups 25 1908.006 76.32 = 1.0000E-4Total ,27 4810.564
Model II estimate of between component variance a. 687.479
Group: Count: Mean: Std. Dev.: Std. Error:
193
PRM 8 6.63 2.02 .714
TRM 10 27.475 9.42 2.979
IControl 10 30.503 10.959 3.466
Comparison: Mean Diff.: Scheffe F-test:
PRM vs. TRM -20.845 12.652'
PRM vs. Control -23.873 16.594'
TRM vs. Control -3kMi .3
Significant at 95%
One Factor ANOVA X1: Reciprocal Interactions
Source: OF:
Analysis of Variance Table
Y2: Winter
-
Between groups 2 4282.989 2141.495 23.42Within groups 20 1828.808 91.44 p . 1.0000E-4Total 22 6111.797
Model II estimate of between component variance mg 1025.027
ean: Std. Dev.: Std. Error:
194
--PAM 8 5.209 3.113 1.101
TRM 9 15.25 8.805 2.935
Control 6 40.012 15.105 6.166
Comparison: Mean Diff.: Scheffe F-test:
PRM vs. TRM -10.041 2.335
PRM vs. Control -34.803 22.708'
TRM vs. Control -24.762 12.07"
Significant at 95%
One Factor ANOVA X1: Reciprocal Interactions Y3: Spring
Analysis of Variance Table
Source: OF: Sum Squares: Mean Square: F-test:Between rotg_gs 2 2392.331 1196.165 8.173Within rous 21 3073.586 146.361 .0024
1 Total 23 5465.917
Model II estimate of between component variance in 524.902
Group: Count: Mean: Std. Dev.: Std. Error:
PRM 8 6.889 3.117 1.102
TRM 9 13.83 3.701 1.234
I Control 7 31.571 21.97 8.304
Comparison: Mean Diff.: Scheffe F -test:
PRM vs. TRM -6.941 .697
PRM vs. Control -24.683 7.77"
TRM vs. Control -17.741 4.234*
Significant at 95%
222
Reciprocal Interactions
Row MeansComparisons : Scheffe F-Test
PRM vs. TRM 23.38'
PRM vs. Control 90.76'
TRM vs. Control 28.14'
Column Means
'-Corriparlsons':',F.S: nny's,,Scheffe ''F-Test. 7'Z' ,Fall vs. Winter .18
Winter vs. Spring .75
Fall vs. Spring 1.69
'Significant at 95%
223
195
Source:
Cooperative Play
Anova table for a 2-factor repeated measures Anova.
df: Sum of Squares: Mean Square: F-test:
196
P value:Cooperatve Play (A) 2 2769.053 1384.526 18.778 1.0E-4subjects w. groups 20 1474.662Repeated Measure (B) 2 7.533
_73.733
3.766 .039 .9614AB 4 804.075 201.019 2.103 .0983B x subjects w. groupg 40 '3822.653 95.566
Source:
There were no missing cells found. 5 cases deleted with missing values.
The AB Incidence table
Re'peated Mea... Fall Winter Spring Totals:>a.a)
EQ.oo0
PRM8
6.2938
3.291
8
3.49924
4.361
TRM9
15.59
9.8079
8.66727
11.324
Control6
13.3676
22.8276
26.11218
20.768
Totals:23
11.74123
10.93723
11.4269
11.366
One Factor ANOVA X1: Cooperatve Play Y1: Fall
DF:
Analysis of Variance Table
Sum Squares: Mean Square: F-test:Between groups 2 61.2.578- 306:289- 8:617Within groups 25 888.605 35.544 . p = .0014Total 27 1501.183
Model 11 estimate of between component variance - 135.372
Group: Count: Mean:
PRM 8 6.293 2.366 .836
TRM 10 16.81 6.678 2.112Control 10 16.473 7.056 2.231
Comparison:
PRM vs. TRM -10.518 6.916*
PRM vs. Control -10.181 6.48TRM vs. Control .337 7.988E-3
Significant at 95%
"anasoni
224
Source:
One Factor ANOVA X1: Cooperatve Play Y2: Winter 197
D
Analysis of Variance Table
. .......... ... .....- . ........Between groups 2 1327.344 663.672 6.271Within groups 20 2116.665 105.833 p = .0077Total 22 3444.008
Group:
Model II estimate of between component variance - 278.919
Count: Mean: Std. Dev.: Std. Error:- ..
PRM 8 3.291 2.618 .926
TRM 9 9.807 7.888 2.629
Control 6 22.827 17.725 7.236
Comparison: Mean Diff.: Scheffe F-test:
PRM vs. TRM -6.515 .849
PRM vs. Control -19.535 6.182
`TRM vs. Control -13.02 2.883
Significant at 95%
One Factor ANOVA X1: Cooperatve Play Y3: Spring
Analysis of Variance Table
S ares: Mean Square: F-test:
Betweengroups 2 1950.406 975.203 7.117
Within groups 21 2877.546 137.026 p = .0044
1 Total 23-
4827.952
Model II estimate of between component variance 419.088
Std. Error:
PRM
___....
8
...__...
3.499 1.864 .659
TRM 9 8.667 2.79 .93
Control 17125.484 21.567 8.152
Comparison: Mean Diff.: Scheffe F-test:
PRM vs. TRM -5.168 .413
PRM vs. Control -21.986 6.585
TRM vs. Control -16.818 4.064*
Significant at 95% 225
Cooperative Play
Row MeansComparisons' Scheffe F-Test
PRM vs. TRM 8.36*
PRM vs. Control 37.6
TRM vs. Control 13.08
Column Means-Comparlsons.'', ,-:,:'; ..,,'>;,..Scheffe . F-Test .,
Fail vs. Winter .07
Winter vs. Spring .03
Fall vs. Spring .01
Significant at 95%
2 26'
198
199APPENDIX D - SUMMARY OF PARENT SATISFACTION DATA TO OPEN-ENDED QUESTIONS
Summary of Parent Responses
5. What was your reaction to working in the classroom? Did you feelcomfortable with your assigned responsibilities? Do you think you needmore training?
I felt very comfortable, under the direction of the teacher.don't feel more training is necessary (H).
I
I thoroughly enjoy working in the classroom; Brooki makes me feelvery useful (NH).
I did music and had a great time. Wish I had time to help outmore (NH). ..--
6. What things did you like about the CHIPP program?
It gave my daughter a good chance to associate with handicappedchildren. I think that it is a good exposure, especially sincelittle brother has a handicap too. This way, they can interactwith the ,1 and know it's okay and help them realize everyone isdifferent and individual (NH).
They teach social interaction, behaviorrules and respect ofrules, writing, etc., field trips. (He has learned that kids arekids and friends, whether they have handicaps or not (NH).
It teaches them how to act with handicapped children (NH).
Wide spectrum of learning opportunities. Exposure at a young ageto all kinds of children (NH).
7. What specific concerns, if any, did you have about mainstreamimg beforeyour child started in the program? Did these things happen?
We are very happy with our child's class (H).
More emphasis on creativity, less testing I think it isimpossible to give stressfree tests, especially to some children(NH).
Maybe more interaction with the staff to help with my child'sschooling. This is more my fault than programs though (H).
This seems to be a really good progrnl. I've not studied it wellenough to answer (H).
8. What things would you like to change about the CHIPP program?
I was concerned that bad behavior would be a problem. There hasnot been anything that he wouldn't have thought of anyway (noproblem) (H).
227
200
Worried he wouldn't be able to communicate and interact with otherchildren. No, I am very pleased (H).
I thought perhaps the nonhandicapped children would be ignored.This was not the case (NH).
None. I believe my child adjusted to the program rapidly, whichalleviated any concerns I had towards it. However, more attentionis paid to the handicapped children (NH).
228
201
Appendix E - SUMMARY OF PARTICIPANT SATISFACTION WITH WEEK -LONG WORKSHOP
Mainstreaming Workshop Evaluation Overall
Date of Workshop: June 8-12, 1987
1. I rate my degree of interest in this workshop as:
Low 1 0% 1 5% 1 10% 1 26% 1 58% 1 High1 1 1
I
I
1
I
1
1
2. I rate the value I received from the workshop as:
Low 1 0% : 10% 1 15% i 22% 1 53% 1 High1 1
I
1
I
1 1
:
I
3. I rate the clarity of the goals of the workshop as:
Low 1 5% 1 0% i 0% 1 22% 1 73% 1 High1
1 1
1 1 1 1
1
4. The degree to which the goals of the workshop were met was:
Low 1 0% 1 5% 1 0% : 22% 1 73% : High1 1
1
1
1
1
1 1 1 1
5. I rate the quality of the staff's attitude toward the audience as:
Low 1 0% j 0% 1 5% 1 32% 1 63% 1 High1 1
11 I I 1 1
6. I rate the sufficiency of audio and visual materials as:
Low 1
....
0% 1 0% 1 5% 1 26% 1 59% 1 High1
1
: 11 1
7. Enough references were made available (handouts) to enable me to obtainmore information, if desired.
Strongly Disagree No Agree StronglyDisagree Opinion Agree
0% 1 0% 1 0% 1 15% 1 85% 1
:
1
I
I 1
1I
I.1 1
8. Work assignments should have been made prior to arrival at theworkshop.
Strongly Disagree No Agree StronglyDisagree Opinion A ree
i 5% 1 51% 1 22% 1 11% 1 11% 1
i 1 1 1 1 11
1 . 1
229
202
9. A followup of the workshop should be conducted.
Strongly Disagree No Agree StronglyDisagree Opinion Agree
0% 1 5% 1 62% 1 28% 1 5% 1
1
1 1
1
1 1
1
1
1
1
10. I would attend another workshop offered by the FMS or VSSM projects.
Strongly Disagree NoDisa ree 0 inion
0% 8 11% 8 11%I I
I
I...-......-.......
I
I
Agree StronglyA ree
39% 1 39%1
11. The pacing of the workshop was appropriate.
Strongly Disagree No AgreeDisa ree Opinion
5% 11% i 5% 1 51%
StronglyA ree
28%
1
12. List two best things about the workshop.
Peer tutoringMany facilitatorsInformation dispensedEnjoyed group workPeople were interestingSharing materials
Several viewpoints expressed in organized mannerGreat socialsMaterials
Teacher evaluation listPacingGroup involvementStaff inputAnswer sessionsHandoutsWide range of topicsOrganizationInformative, clearPractical useObjectives
Buddies, peer tutoringHill Walker's presentationSteve Kukic's presentation
13. List two areas that could be improved in future workshops.
Bring in more participants (i.e., buddies, tutors, teachers, etc.)Groups should have been made by severity groups too divergentGuests needed to speak to "whole" group rather than "Utah" audience
230
. 203
Need more regular teacher inputLike to know more history of how this all came aboutNeed more "how to" demonstrations of what to expect of children andteachers in their mainstream settingNeeded to discuss preschool programClarity of reasons for presentors
Less bias towards Special Ed (consideration of Regular Ed)More audiovisual examplesViewing mainstreaming in actionMore guest speakers
The use of "OK" by staff is overusedGet rid of sessions not related to mainstreaming (i.e., stress,etc.)
Faster pace neededGear less to severe and profound handicaps
14. Comments and recommendations will be most appreciated.Groups not formed correctlyDirect instruction was put downRelax don't be too seriousConsider ULRC's Achieving Inservice Compentency packageDidn't address mild handicapsEnjoyed enthusiasm of instructorsAppreciated all literature disseminatedEnjoyed peer tutoring and buddy system portions of workshopExcellent workshopWell designedVery informativeGreat!
Enjoyed variety of instructors
2a1